-
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
statements about market conditions aren’t about “nature, characteristics, or qualities” under 43(b)
Nexus Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Long Grove Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 2025 WL 81877, No. 24-10444-MJJ (D. Mass. Jan. 13, 2025) Nexus sued its competitor Long Grove under the Lanham Act, alleging that Long Grove made false statements about a shortage of fluorescein, … Continue reading
are certificates of analysis and other technical specs commercial speech?
Sweegen, Inc. v. Manus Bio Inc., No. 8:24-cv-01757-JVS-DFM, 2024 WL 5317280 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2024) Sweegen is one of the largest suppliers of non-GMO Rebaudioside M or “Reb M” sweetener, manufactured through bioconversion from stevia leaves. Its competitor makes … Continue reading
Call for Papers: Harvard/Yale/Stanford Junior Faculty Forum, June 2-3, 2025
Request for Submissions Harvard/Stanford/Yale Junior Faculty Forum June 2-3, 2025, Harvard Law School Harvard, Stanford, and Yale Law Schools are soliciting submissions for the 2025 Harvard/Stanford/Yale Junior Faculty Forum, to be held at Harvard Law School on June 2-3, 2025. … Continue reading
literal falsity might not matter with sufficiently sophisticated customers
G. W. Aru, LLC v. W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., No. JKB-22-2636, 2025 WL 45827 (D. Md. Jan. 7, 2025) I’m skipping most of the patent parts, though they are very much present in the case and interact with a … Continue reading
“Target Clean” might certify specific qualities to reasonable consumers
Boyd v. Target Corp., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2024 WL 4287669, No. 23-CV-02668 (KMM/DJF) (D. Minn. Sept. 25, 2024) This interesting lawsuit relies on Target’s curatorial reputation for the false advertising claim. Target is headquartered in Minnesota and plaintiffs sought to … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged class actions, consumer protection, false advertising
Leave a comment
“pure” chocolate may be deceptive if it has too much heavy metal
In re Theos Dark Chocolate Litigation, 2024 WL 4336631, No. 23-cv-02739-HSG, — F.Supp.3d —- (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2024) Plaintiffs alleged that Theo’s dark chocolate bars contained, or risked containing, the heavy metals cadmium, lead, and arsenic at levels exceeding … Continue reading
Reading list: The Patterns of Digital Deception, Gregory Dickinson
B.C.L.R. (2024). From the introduction: … In contrast with the mass emails of old, scammers now stalk and target their victims with expert precision. … To bolster the FTC’s traditional, case-by-case approach to combating unfair competition, lawmakers have proposed (and in … Continue reading
false advertising claim survives because math is hard for reasonable consumers
Robertson v. Clean Control Corp., No. 5:24-cv-01478-SSS-DTBx, 2024 WL 5193852 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2024) Robertson bought Odoban, a concentrated multi-purpose cleaning product, which states “Makes up to 32 Gallons” on the front label. That principally describes Odoban as a … Continue reading
Two recent amicus briefs: Santos v. Kimmel and Sedlik v. Von Drachtenberg
In the Second Circuit, supporting fair use on a motion to dismiss in Santos v. Kimmel, and in the Ninth Circuit, supporting the jury’s verdict of lack of substantial similarity in Sedlik v. Von Drachtenberg. from Blogger http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2024/12/two-recent-amicus-briefs-santos-v.html
Celebration on Rimini Street as it achieves significant (c)/Lanham Act victories in 9th Circuit
Oracle Int’l Corp. v. Rimini Street, Inc., — F.4th —-, No. 23-16038, 2024 WL 5114449 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2024) Rimini Street gets a reasonably substantial victory in its long-running battle with Oracle in this appeal. Prior rulings held that … Continue reading