Author Archives: rtushnet

lack of harm allegations beyond “direct competition plus customer inquiries” insufficient for false advertising standing

Kalmbach Feeds, Inc. v. Purina Animal Nutrition, LLC, 2026 WL 598608, No. 2:25-cv-00617 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2026) Previously. Kalmbach sued Defendant Purina for false advertising under state and federal law in connection with its Farm to Flock chicken feed, … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Commemorating 50 Years of the Copyright Act, part 3

STLR Panel 2: Litigating Fair Use in Copyright Zahr Said: Substantial similarity is confused. Sedlik is a good example. Laudable for concurrences to recognize need for reform in this crummy, confusing test, but that’s not reflected in the case itself. … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Commemorating 50 Years of the Copyright Act, part 2

The 1976 Copyright Act: Mostly Evolutionary, Not Revolutionary Tyler Ochoa 1790 Act adopted the Statute of Anne—not radical even though it was the first for the US. Similar here—major changes, but not radical. Expanded subject matter; protection on creation/fixation instead … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Commemorating 50 Years of the 1976 Copyright Act, Stanford Law School

The Copyright Act at 50: Evolution and Impact Shira Perlmutter Copyright Act took a long time, with input from lots of interest groups and attention to detail—hundreds of contending and overlapping interests were involved. Hard to imagine this process today. … Continue reading

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

court gives guidance on disclaimer placement, AI alterations in enforcement proceeding

InSinkErator LLC v. Joneca Company LLC, 2025 WL 4631972, No. 8:24-cv-02600-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025) Previous discussion of this false advertising case. In a separate order, the court deals with other compliance issues than those below. It rejects the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

former TM owner states valid damages claim against licensee of current TM owner that drove it out of business via infringement

Wagner Zip-Change, Inc. v. Tubelitedenco, No. 23 C 05077, 2026 WL 673148 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2026) Wild facts! Wagner was until 2021 in the business of selling sign lettering products, including its trademarked Jewelite Trim (also known as “trim … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

delay still defeats Lanham Act presumption of irreparable harm

Skillz Platform Inc. v. Voodoo SAS, 2026 WL 717220, No. 24-CV-4991 (VSB) (JW) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2026) Skillz sought an injunction against defendants’ allegedly false representations about not using bots, and against defendants’ use of bots, in their gaming applications. … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

damages requirement trips up another false advertising case with sophisticated customers

Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Axion Biosystems, Inc., 2026 WL 734986, No. 23-198-CJB (D. Del. Mar. 12, 2026) Agilent alleged patent infringement and false advertising by Axion in the advertising of its impedance-based cell assay products. E.g., “The simple and sensitive … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

drug makers face rocky road in making claims against sellers of compounded weight loss drugs

Three different cases reading Lexmark differently but mostly kicking out claims: Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aios, Inc., 2026 WL 836624, No. 25-cv-03535-HSG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2026) Eli Lilly sells Mounjaro and Zepbound, GLP-1 inhibitors containing tirzepatide. These are the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

CEO/sole owner is liable to bankruptcy estate for deliberate false advertising campaign that ended in bankruptcy

In re Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VPX Liquidating Trust v. Owoc), 2026 WL 822473, No. 22-17842-PDR, Adv. Pro. No. 24-01009-PDR (Bkrcy. S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2026) This is an interesting case about false advertising and individual officer liability in bankruptcy. The … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment