Author Archives: rtushnet

TM exam question: the right of publicity v. comparative advertising

What if Coco Chanel had been the plaintiff in Smith v. Chanel?  This question made me very happy, and I got a bunch of interesting answers on my final: Kim Kardashian is famous for being famous. She is a highly … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

exercise company affiliation and ad revenue don’t make diet review into commercial speech

GOLO, Inc. v. HighYa, LLC, 2018 WL 2086733, No. 17-2714 (E.D. Pa. May 4, 2018) The court here declines to apply the Lanham Act to “companies that generate income through websites that review the products of others, without selling any … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Content Moderation at Scale, 2/2

You Make the Call: Audience Interactive (with a trigger warning for content requiring moderation) Emma Llanso, Center for Democracy & Technology & Mike Masnick, Techdirt Hypo: “Grand Wizard Smith,” w/user photo of a person in a KKK hood, posts a … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Content Moderation at Scale, DC Version

Foundations: The Legal and Public Policy Framework for Content Eric Goldman gave a spirited overview of 230 and related rules, including his outrage at the canard that federal criminal law hadn’t applied to websites until recently—he pointed out that online … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CC-licensed or not? you be the judge

A knitting pattern I’m using comes with a CC license and license terms that seem distinctly un-CC.  For contracts folks out there, what license do I have? It says CC-BY-NC-SA, but then “What does this copyright notice mean?” purports to … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Showing good-looking cuts of meat is puffery for pet food

Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc. 2018 WL 2050449, — F.3d – (6th Cir. May 3, 2018)| Wysong, which sells pet food, sued six competitors for violating the Lanham Act through pictures like this one: “The bag features a photograph of … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

ABC doesn’t find getting rid of pro se (c) and TM claim so simple

 Manigault v. ABC Inc., 2018 WL 2022823, No. 17-CV-7375 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2018) (magistrate judge) An app owner’s copyright and trademark claims against a news organization for broadcasting a news story about apps, including his, survive a motion to dismiss … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Alzheimer’s Association and Alzheimer’s Foundation in keyword battle

Among other things, this case has some interesting things to say about IIC and proper controls in survey cases. Alzheimer’s Disease & Related Disorders Association, Inc. v. Alzheimer’s Foundation of America, Inc. 2018 WL 1918618, No. 10-CV-3314 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

competitor lacks Lanham Act standing absent allegations of why it in particular would be harmed by false advertising

Blue Star Press, LLC v. Blasko, No. 17-CA-111-OLG, 2018 WL 1904835 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2018) (magistrate judge R&R) The parties make adult coloring books, typically marketed as a means of relieving stress but proving stressful in this litigation. Blue … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

seller can’t sue customer for false advertising under Lanham Act because customer can’t sue seller either

Buckeye Int’l, Inc. v. Schmidt Custom Floors, Inc., 2018 WL 1960115, No. 18-cv-111-jdp (W.D. Wis. Apr. 26, 2018) Buckeye sells floor finishing products, including Gym Bond, which is supposed to help a clear topcoat adhere to a previously finished gymnasium … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment