-
Recent Posts
- candy buyers fail to allege difference between pumpkin & Jack-o’-lantern shape
- Amicus in section 230 false light case
- Amicus in Rise & Shine
- it’s hard to get rid of a foreign TM owner’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage despite territoriality
- dct strikes down California’s new recyclability law on vagueness/1A grounds
Recent Comments
Archives
- September 2026
- August 2026
- July 2026
- June 2026
- May 2026
- April 2026
- March 2026
- 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
Dastar bars false advertising claim based on patent filing
Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC v. Stern, 2014 WL 6910212, No. 2:13–CV–00826 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2014) Akzo makes specialty chemicals, including adjuvants, which are additives that modify the properties of the main ingredient in formulations. Stern was formerly employed … Continue reading
Actual confusion irrelevant when Rogers v. Grimaldi applies
Mil-Spec Monkey, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. 14-cv-02361 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2014) MSM alleged that the video game Call of Duty: Ghosts made infringing use of MSM’s “angry monkey” mark, “among the most popular morale patch designs” MSM … Continue reading
Posted in first amendment, trademark
Leave a comment
plaintiff must identify elements of trade dress, specific false claims
Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC, 2014 WL 6892141, No. CV 14–03954 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014) Previously, the court granted a preliminary injunction on certain false advertising claims and refused to stop the plaintiff from publicizing that. Now … Continue reading
It’s all about control: how to get a survey excluded
First Data Merchant Services Corp. v. SecurityMetrics, Inc., No. RDB–12–2568, 2014 WL 6871581 (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2014) This is a motion to exclude in a false advertising/antitrust case. “This origins of this contentious case lie in a soured business … Continue reading
Public Knowledge on the monkey selfie threat letter
Sherwin Siy, bringing just enough snark in reply to the camera-owner’s demand letter. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Reading list: Putting Intellectual Property in Its Place
Laura J. Murray, S. Tina Piper, & Kirsty Robertson, Putting Intellectual Property in Its Place: Rights Discourses, Creative Labor, and the Everyday: Coming at roughly the same time as Jessica Silbey’s The Eureka Myth, this book, like Silbey’s, challenges IP … Continue reading
Reading list: facts versus opinions in mandatory disclosure
Daniel E. Herz-Roiphe, Stubborn Things: An Empirical Approach to Facts, Opinions, and the First Amendment From the intro: [This] essay reports the results of an original survey that presented respondents with the actual disclosures at issue in a number of … Continue reading
When is a 13-year discrepancy immaterial?
According to the UK ASA, when it’s the difference between 1860 and 1873 as the confirmed date of a bakery’s founding: “We understood that their competitors were much younger, with the oldest having been founded in 1949 and so Warrens … Continue reading
False advertising claims not arbitrable when ads predated agreement
Mohebbi v. Khazen, Case No. 13-cv-03044, 2014 WL 6845477 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2014) Mohebbi sued Khazen over Mohebbi’s agreement to invest over $1 million in a partnership in exchange for defendants’ help in getting him qualified for the federal … Continue reading
Garcia v. Google thoughts: input welcome!
Along with many others, Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Justin Hughes, Peter Menell, and David Nimmer submitted an amicus in Garcia v. Google making a number of interesting arguments; I’m generally sympathetic to the idea that we should be more flexible about joint … Continue reading