-
Recent Posts
- WIPIP Panel 6: Design and Brand; Protectable Subject Matter; Copyright Theory and Doctrine II
- WIPIP Panel 5: Trademark Doctrine
- WIPIP Panel 4: Emerging Technologies
- “shipping protection fee” providing no extra protection was plausibly misleading drip pricing
- WIPIP Panel 3: Deepfakes, Celebrities, and Movies
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- June 2013
Categories
- 230
- acpa
- advertising
- antitrust
- art law
- attribution
- blogging
- california
- cfaa
- cfps
- class actions
- cmi
- comics
- commercial speech
- conferences
- consumer protection
- contracts
- copying
- copyright
- counterfeiting
- cultural property
- damages
- dastar
- defamation
- design patent
- dilution
- disclosures
- disparagement
- dmca
- drm
- fan fiction
- fanworks
- fda
- fees
- first amendment
- ftc
- geographic indications
- http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
- insurance
- jurisdiction
- libraries
- misappropriation
- music
- my lawsuits
- my writings
- parody
- patent
- patents
- preemption
- presentations
- privacy
- procedure
- reading list
- remedies
- right of publicity
- secondary liability
- securities
- standing
- surveys
- teaching
- tortious interference
- trade secrets
- trademark
- traditional knowledge
- Uncategorized
- unconscionability
- unfairness
- warranties
Meta
Author Archives: rtushnet
comparative advertising isn’t confusing
Windmar PV Energy, Inc. v. Solar Now Puerto Rico, LLC, 2025 WL 725078, NO. 24-1570 (RAM) (D.P.R. Mar. 6, 2025) A frivolous lawsuit against comparative advertising; the court gets the right result at least. Windmar and Solar now compete in … Continue reading
“natural” claims proceed because reasonable consumers can know little about pet food
Goetz v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC, 2025 WL 692426, No. 24-CV-04799 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2025) Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law and breach of warranty based on defendants’ allegedly false … Continue reading
job postings aren’t “commercial advertising or promotion” for hiring party’s goods/services
Sun Nong Dan Foods, Inc. v. Kangnam1957, Inc., 2024 WL 5440252, No. 2:23-cv-09779-WLH-RAO (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2024) Not a surprise, but fills a gap in the caselaw: employment ads aren’t “commercial advertising and promotion” for the business trying to … Continue reading
Rogers v. Grimaldi lives on, at least for work content
Of note because the lawsuit was brought at all, suggesting that trademark owners are willing to try to roll back any First Amendment protections for noncommercial speech. Pepperdine University v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01429-CV (ADSx), 2025 WL 632983 (C.D. Cal. … Continue reading
5th Circuit discounts confusion caused by overlap in commonly used arbitrary word
Rampart Resources, Inc. v. Rampart/Wurth Holding, Inc., No. 24-30111, 2025 WL 586820 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025) District court’s denial of preliminary injunction discussed here. Rampart Resources) provides real estate and property management services in Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, … Continue reading
pandemic education shutdowns allow unjust enrichment, not contract or false advertising claims
Yodice v. Touro College & Univ. Sys., 2025 WL 579957, No. 21cv2026 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2025) Yodice sued Touro for reimbursement of tuition and fees he paid during the Spring 2020 semester, when Touro’s campuses were closed due to … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, contracts, false advertising, unfairness
Leave a comment
disgorging a CEO’s salary, then trebling the amount?
Multiple Energy Technologies, LLC v. Casden, 2025 WL 579641, № 2:21-cv-01149-ODW (RAOx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2025) I just posted about courts’ increasing openness to disgorgement. Here, the court trebles an award in a way that seems definitionally disconnected to … Continue reading
FDA preclusion doesn’t work as often after Pom Wonderful (or Loper Bright?)
Pacira BioSciences, Inc. v. Ventis Pharma, Inc., 2025 WL 576549, No. 2:24-cv-07554-MRA-RAO, (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025) Pacira alleged that its competitor (here Ventis) violated the Lanham Act by making claims about its drugs relating to (1) exemption from FDA … Continue reading
Remedy creep: SCt seems to endorse more disgorgement
Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., No. 23–900 (Feb. 26, 2025) We’ve gone very fast from most lower courts saying that willfulness was required for Lanham Act disgorgement/profits awards, to the Court saying that it wasn’t required but was … Continue reading
distinguishing false establishment claims from lack of substantiation claims
Kurin, Inc. v. ICU Medical, Inc., 2024 WL 5416672, No. 8:24-cv-00564-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2024) The parties compete in the market for medical devices aimed at addressing blood culture contamination (BCC) in hospitals. BCC is both medically and financially … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment