Author Archives: rtushnet

FTC can presume consumer reliance in contempt proceedings

FTC v. BlueHippo Funding, LLC, No. 11-374-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 12, 2014) (random side note: decided two and a half years after oral argument!) The FTC appealed the damages portion of a 2010 SDNY order granting in part the FTC’s … Continue reading →

Posted in damages, ftc, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

Reading list: copyright history

Reading list: Derek Miller, Performative Performances: A History and Theory of the “Copyright Performance,” 64 Theatre Journal 161 (2012).  Miller offers an account of an episode in 19th century British copyright law when, it was generally accepted, some sort of … Continue reading →

Posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, reading list | Leave a comment

court borrows limitations period from consumer protection law for Lanham Act claim

Cannella v. Brennan, No. 2:12-CV-1247 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2014) Plaintiffs First Senior Financial Group, Phillip Cannella, and Joann Small sued “Watchdog,” an anonymous blogger, and Doe defendants, ultimately identifying Krista Brennan as Watchdog and the Doe defendants as Granite … Continue reading →

Posted in commercial speech, consumer protection, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, tortious interference | Leave a comment

Lexmark’s effect on "commercial advertising or promotion"

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North America, Inc., 2014 WL 3882886, No. 13-1391 (8th Cir. Aug. 8, 2014) District court opinion discussed here.  This opinion is more Lexmark fallout.  Syngenta, a biotech company that makes genetically modified corn seed (Viptera), … Continue reading →

Posted in commercial speech, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, standing | Leave a comment

Dodged a virus and copyright liability: Court rules unused copy isn’t infringing

Design Data Corp. v. Unigate Enterprise, Inc., 2014 WL 3868076, No. 12–cv–04131 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014) The court found that defendants couldn’t be liable for copyright infringement when the only copying they ever did consisted of downloading, but not … Continue reading →

Posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, secondary liability | Leave a comment

Product disparagement as trademark dilution?

Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Braintree Laboratories, Inc., 2014 WL 3850072, No. 13–12553 (D. Mass. Aug. 4, 2014) This is mostly a false advertising case, but stick around for the weird dilution ruling.  The parties compete in the market for bowel … Continue reading →

Posted in dilution, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, trademark | Leave a comment

IPSC part 10: hodgepodge

Sixth Breakout Session The Patented Design Sarah Burstein What should the patented design cover?  Require the design to be applied to a particular product, and signal that in the name/title.  That better respects First Amendment concerns, notice function of patents, … Continue reading →

Posted in antitrust, design patent, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, patent, trademark | Leave a comment

IPSC part 9: copyright plenary session

Plenary Session Making Copyright Work for Creative Upstarts Sean Pager Imagine you’re a singer in a rock band, and hear your song used unauthorized for a car commercial. You call and they brush you off.  You can’t afford a lawyer, … Continue reading →

Posted in copyright, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, secondary liability | Leave a comment

IPSC part 8: second plenary: copyright reform/innovation policy

Copyright Reform and the Academy Shira Perlmutter Chief Policy Officer & Director for International Affairs US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) We seem to be poised at the brink of very significant change.  Matching tech change, but policy evolution has … Continue reading →

Posted in copyright, dmca, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

IPSC part 7: copyright limitations

Fifth Breakout Session Copyright Limitations Inventing Around Copyright Dan Burk Recurring pattern in ©: Napster/Grokster, where Napster was held liable for having centralized architecture/ability to know what’s on the system and thus being contributorily/vicariously liable. Not surprisingly, next generation P2P … Continue reading →

Posted in copyright, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, secondary liability | Leave a comment