Author Archives: rtushnet

Kate Spade fails to toss outlet lawsuit alleging inferior quality compared to boutiques

Posted on October 5, 2017 by rtushnet

Irvine v. Kate Spade & Co., 2017 WL 4326538, No. 16-CV-7300 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2017) Plaintiffs alleged that Kate Spade marks merchandise sold at outlets with an illusory and arbitrarily higher price from which a substantial “discount” is then offered, … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

FTC loses motion to dismiss because court doesn’t deal well with statistics

Posted on October 5, 2017 by rtushnet

FTC v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Co., 2017 WL 4382312, No. 17 Civ. 124 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2017) Lawyers and especially generalist-by-necessity judges need to understand some statistical basics. When they don’t, they let bad science shape consumers’ decisions and even … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Pleading facts indicating that ad claims are likely impossible suffices for plausibility

Posted on October 2, 2017 by rtushnet

Fan Fi International, Inc. v. Interlink Prods. Int’l, Inc., 2017 WL 4293144, No.16-cv-00661 (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2017) After being sued in New Jersey, Fan Fi and ETL sued Interlink in Nevada for false advertising under the Lanham Act and … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

“information and belief” isn’t enough to allege competitive injury in false advertising case

Posted on October 2, 2017 by rtushnet

Brickstructures, Inc. v. Coaster Dynamix, Inc., 2017 WL 4310671, No. 16 CV 10969 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2017) Brickstructures, a LEGO-structure-creating business, sued Coaster for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and false advertising under the Lanham Act. Given … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Are Crocs’ uniqueness claims a crock?

Posted on October 2, 2017 by rtushnet

Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 06-cv-00605, 2017 WL 4286148 (D. Colo. Sept. 25, 2017) Crocs makes molded clogs, and Dawgs is a competitor. Allegedly, “[e]ach and every functional feature disclosed in the [’858] patent application, except the heel strap, … Continue reading →

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

Reasonable consumers needn’t expect individual products to differ from overall brand recommended by experts

Posted on September 28, 2017 by rtushnet

Eidelman v. Sun Prods. Corp., No. 16-cv-3914, 2017 WL 4277187 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2017) Eidelman allegedly bought Sun Product’s “237-fl oz. bottle of ALL PLUS + FREE CLEAR … liquid detergent” based on its label that it was “from the … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Errant earrings: (c) but not trade dress success likely, still no irreparable harm

Posted on September 26, 2017 by rtushnet

Ear Charms, Inc. v. Bling Jewelry, Inc., 2017 WL 2957796, No. CV 16-02091 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) Sandra Callisto designed a “stylish alternative to pierced earrings” for Ear Charms, specifically “wave” earrings, which allegedly bore “a unique and distinctive … Continue reading →

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

Response to Tim Wu’s piece on First Amendment obsolescence

Posted on September 26, 2017 by rtushnet

Not Waving but Drowning: Saving the Audience from the Floods. A response to Tim Wu’s essay “Is the First Amendment Obsolete?” from Blogger http://ift.tt/2hybHwu

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Harvard JOLT seeks submissions

Posted on September 26, 2017 by rtushnet

The Harvard Journal of Law and Technology is one of the leading journals covering the ever-developing interaction between law and technology. JOLT Digest is the Journal’s online-only companion, providing timely updates and new perspectives on recent developments in technology law, … Continue reading →

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

Brief on TM issues in ASTM v. Public Resource

Posted on September 26, 2017 by rtushnet

Mark McKenna and I, with other trademark professors, have written a brief in the ASTM case.  Thanks to Sam Bagenstos for last-minute filing assistance. from Blogger http://ift.tt/2hy8HjI

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment