Author Archives: rtushnet

“natural” plausibly meant “all natural”

Cobovic v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., No. 24-CV-7730 (ARR) (JAM), 2025 WL 1726261 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 20, 2025) Cobovic alleged that Mars’s use of the word “natural” on the label of its pet food products violates New York consumer protection law … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

parties’ marketing to Spanish speakers in SoCal is not meaningful marketing overlap

Olé Mexican Foods Inc. v. SK Market Inc., 2025 WL 1717646, No. 2:25-cv-01877-WLH-BFM (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2025) Courts have already converged on “everybody uses the internet to market, so that’s not a significant overlap.” This is the first decision … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit reads “literal falsity” way too narrowly

BPI Sports, LLC v. Thermolife Int’l LLC, Nos. 2023-1068, 2023-1625, 2023-1112, 2025 WL 1683234 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 16, 2025) This is a false advertising case involving allegedly false patent marking. Creatine nitrate is an amino-acid nitrate used in dietary supplements. … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

“abortion reversal” promoter engaged in inherently and potentially misleading commercial speech, court rules

Culture of Life Family Services, Inc. v. Bonta, 2025 WL 1677783, No. 3:24-cv-01338-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2025) In two opinions on the same day, the court didn’t give much comfort to an “abortion reversal” provider. COLFS sought to enjoin … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

it’s plausibly deceptive to sell “Kids” gummies identical to adult gummies

Barrales v. New Chapter, Inc., 2025 WL 1584424, No. 2:25-cv-01171-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2025) Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s Fiber Gummies were deceptively labeled (1) because the claim “with 4g of probiotic fiber” was false because it implies that each … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“wholesome” not puffery in context, court finds

Levit v. Nature’s Bakery, LLC, 767 F.Supp.3d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2025) Nature’s Bakery Products fig bars claim “Wholesome Baked In,” “equal parts wholesome and delicious,” “what we bake in is as important as what we leave out,” “simple snacks made … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

competitor’s challenge to use of expired certification marks must go to trial

FireBlok IP Holdings v. Hilti, Inc., No. 19-cv-50122, 2025 WL 1557924 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 4, 2025) FireBlok sued defendants, relevantly for false advertising and false association. The court denied FireBlok’s motion for summary judgment. FireBlok alleged that defendants’ use of … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

P&G’s primary jurisdiction argument over tampon labels goes down like a lead balloon

Barton v. Procter & Gamble Co., 766 F.Supp.3d 1045 (S.D. Cal. 2025) Plaintiffs alleged that P&G’s Tampax Pearl and Radiant tampons had dangerous levels of lead; the court allowed some of the usual California claims to proceed, including for injunctive … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Deadline extended to Friday: TM scholarship roundtable

  TM scholarship roundtable The Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable co-hosted by Harvard, NYU, and the University of Pennsylvania will take place this year at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA. The Roundtable is designed to be a … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

court holds Elon Musk couldn’t be deceived by statements he coauthored

Musk v. OpenAI, Inc., 2025 WL 1482386, No. 4:24-CV-04722-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2025) I’m only discussing the false advertising claims; they are funny. Musk’s false advertising claim under California law fails because “there is no evidence Musk relied on … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment