-
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
5th Circuit allows image-based tobacco warnings in barest nod to consistency on compelled commercial speech
R J Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food & Drug Admin., 2024 WL 1208111, — F.4th —-, No. 23-40076 (5th Cir. Mar. 21, 2024) The sudden shift in the political valence of the commercial speech doctrine strikes again! The Fifth Circuit … Continue reading
Nominative fair use requires D to prevail on all 3 factors in 9th Circuit, district court concludes
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Luxury Home Buyers, LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, No.: 2:20-cv-01344-JAD-MDC (D. Nev. Jan. 16, 2024) The court grants plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of parts of this case, discussed previously. Axon alleged that LHB infringed Axon’s “Taser” mark. … Continue reading
D’s consumer survey defeats class action about relevance of geographic origin of water for brewing beer
Peacock v. Pabst Brewing Co., LLC, 2024 WL 1160687, No. 2:18-cv-00568 DJC CKD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2024) Interesting defense-side use of surveys in this consumer protection case. Peacock alleged that Pabst violated consumer protection law by marketing “The Original … Continue reading
Another “buy” button lawsuit over digital licenses continues
In re Amazon Prime Video Litig., 2024 WL 1138906, No. 2:22-cv-00401-RSM (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 2024) This putative class action alleged that Amazon overcharged and “[d]eceived consumers by misrepresenting that it was selling them Digital Content when, in fact, it … Continue reading
CFP: Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable 2024
The Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable co-hosted by Harvard, NYU, and the University of Pennsylvania will take place this year at Harvard. The Roundtable is designed to be a forum for the discussion of current trademark, false advertising, and … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged cfps, false advertising, right of publicity, trademark
Leave a comment
Earth, Wind & Infringement: TM owner succeeds against overclaiming “reunion” band
Earth, Wind & Fire IP, LLC v. Substantial Music Group LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2024 WL 1025265, No. 23-20884-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2024) With the ordinary multifactor confusion test, courts position themselves as looking for empirics (even though the … Continue reading
calling an accepted Rule 68 offer a judgment of infringement could be defamatory
Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. v. Crocs, Inc., 2024 WL 1051951No. 23-cv-01790-PAB-KAS (D. Colo. Mar. 11, 2024) I have a long-running interest in Rule 68 offers of judgment, and this case involves an interaction with false advertising law! The parties compete … Continue reading
reasonable consumers aren’t required to know collagen can’t be vegan
Kandel v. Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare, LLC, 2024 WL 965621, No. 23-cv-01967 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2024) Similar California litigation at a later stage. Kandel alleged that Gross Skincare deceptively labeled and advertised its skincare products as containing collagen when, … Continue reading
small competitor lacks standing against big one’s nondisparaging advertising
HomeLight, Inc. v. Shkipin, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2024 WL 940089 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2024) Sometimes, courts are very generous to competitors in presuming Lanham Act standing—as with the recent Meta ruling—and sometimes they aren’t. I have yet to detect a … Continue reading
Second Circuit affirms holding that asterisk/fine print sufficiently clarifies ambiguous claim
Montgomery v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., 2024 WL 939151, No. 23-735-cv (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2024) Plaintiffs sued defendant (Craftsman) for deceptive business practice claims under both the New York General Business Law (NYGBL), and the Virginia Consumer Protection … Continue reading