Author Archives: rtushnet

Long review: of land (and other) registration

Benito Arruñada, Institutional Foundations of Impersonal Exchange: Theory and Policy of Contractual Registries: This book’s only significant weakness is the extremely dry and abstract way in which it’s written; theoretically it is extremely helpful in explaining the special functions of … Continue reading →

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

false advertising claim based on (c) ownership not preempted, court rules

Carter v. Pallante, 2017 WL 2506419, No. 16 C 6786 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 9, 2017) Tollie Carter has sued Maria A. Pallante (now acting Register Karyn Temple Claggett) in her capacity as the Register of Copyrights, as well as ARC/Conrad … Continue reading →

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

Oh, the Lawsuits You’ll Lose! Court rejects TM claim against Seuss/Trek mashup, signals (c) likely to go too

Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Comicmix LLC, 2017 WL 2505007, No. 16cv2779 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2017) Plaintiff owns the rights to Seuss’s Oh, the Places You’ll Go! (Go!).  Defendants created a Kickstarter for Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go! … Continue reading →

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

Oh, the Lawsuits You’ll Lose! Court rejects TM claim against Seuss/Trek mashup, signals (c) likely to go too

Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Comicmix LLC, 2017 WL 2505007, No. 16cv2779 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2017) Plaintiff owns the rights to Seuss’s Oh, the Places You’ll Go! (Go!).  Defendants created a Kickstarter for Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go! … Continue reading →

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

Proposed amicus brief in Zenimax v. Oculus

Mark McKenna and I put together an amicus brief in this case, arguing that the false designation of origin verdict based on claims about who invented certain technology was precluded by Dastar (and nominative fair use, to the extent it was … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“unapproved drug” claims fail post-Pom, but not challenge to “natural” claim

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hodges Consulting, Inc., 2016 WL 8856671, No. 16-cv-00906 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 13, 2016) Hi-Tech and Hodges compete in the dietary supplement market for body builders.  Hi-Tech sued for patent infringement, as well as for false advertising. … Continue reading →

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

New piece on the right of publicity and its limits

Rebecca Tushnet, Raising Walls Against Overlapping Rights: Preemption and the Right of Publicity, 92 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1549 (2017). from Blogger http://ift.tt/2s6h652

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

Even where irreparable harm is “logical” you still need more than assertions

Rann Pharmacy, Inc. v. Shree Navdurga LLC, 2017 WL 2442975, No. 17-1893 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 6, 2017) Previously, the court enjoined defendants from using the service mark RAMS PHARMACY in Lansdale, Pennsylvania, because it was likely to cause confusion with … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Transformative work of the day, you don’t stop edition

40 Years of Hip Hop, condensed into 4 minutes. from Blogger http://ift.tt/2rFNXwT

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Depressed sales and asserted loss of prestige aren’t irreparable harm

Puma SE v. Forever 21, Inc., No. 17-cv-02523 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 2, 2017) H/T Sarah Burstein.  Puma sued Forever 21 for allegedly counterfeiting its Fenty line of shoes.  (Puma asserted copyright infringement and design patent infringement as well as trademark … Continue reading →

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