Author Archives: rtushnet

POM Won: a summary of the ruling

Posted on June 13, 2014 by rtushnet

POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 12–761, 573 U.S. — (June 12, 2014) POM sued Coca-Cola for falsely advertising a “pomegranate blueberry” juice blend with 0.3% pomegranate juice and 0.2% blueberry juice. The Ninth Circuit found this claim precluded … Continue reading →

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

The Pom Wonderful ruling has arrived

Posted on June 12, 2014 by rtushnet

It is here.  Pom wins reversal. More to come. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

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

selling to multiple hospitals isn’t "advertising or promotion" when total market is large

Posted on June 12, 2014 by rtushnet

Synthes, Inc. v. Emerge Medical, Inc., 2014 WL 2579286, — F. Supp. 2d — (E.D. Pa. June 5, 2014) This is a big case involving trade secrets/former employees who started a competing medical device firm. I’m just going to cover … Continue reading →

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

animal rights organizations have standing to challenge bull run

Posted on June 12, 2014 by rtushnet

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Great Bull Run, LLC, 2014 WL 2568685, No. 14–cv–01171 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2014) ALDF and PETA sued defendants under California’s UCL to enjoin them from operating a bull run. The court denied the motion … Continue reading →

Posted in california, standing | Leave a comment

Success has many copies: HathiTrust

Posted on June 11, 2014 by rtushnet

Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, No. 12‐4547 (2d Cir. June 10, 2014) Several research universities allowed Google to scan their collections; then they created a repository for the digital copies, the HathiTrust Digital Library (HDL), which currently has 80 member … Continue reading →

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

No nominative fair use or dilution dismissals if plaintiff pleads the elements?

Posted on June 11, 2014 by rtushnet

Valley Forge Military Academy Found. v. Valley Forge Old Guard, Inc., No. 09–2373, 2014 WL 2476115 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 2, 2014) Nominative fair use doesn’t have to work this badly, guys! Valley Forge Military Academy Foundation operates the Valley Forge … Continue reading →

Posted in dilution, procedure, trademark | Leave a comment

islands in the stream: Netflix v. Verizon

Posted on June 11, 2014 by rtushnet

Netflix responds to Verizon’s C&D. For those not keeping track, it started when Netflix started sending error message to certain Verizon customers experiencing playback difficulties, telling them that the Verizon network was slow. Verizon responded angrily, threatening suit and demanding … Continue reading →

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

Tough sledding: statements to industry-focused publication can be commercial speech

Posted on June 11, 2014 by rtushnet

Skedco, Inc. v. ARC Products, LLC, 2014 WL 2465577, No. 3:13–CV–00696 (D. Or. Jun. 2, 2014) The parties compete in the market for emergency medical rescue equipment, and are suing over false advertising. Plaintiff’s Sked is “an evacuation sled system … Continue reading →

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

Is embedded advertising any good?

Posted on June 11, 2014 by rtushnet

Negative take on “native advertising” from a purely advertiser-focused viewpoint. The author’s basic argument is that native advertising is essentially by definition unlikely to generate positive brand attention, because who the sponsor is will be forgettable. Query whether the “mere … Continue reading →

Posted in advertising | Leave a comment

A little bit pregnant: miscounting pregnancy duration as false advertising

Posted on June 11, 2014 by rtushnet

Church & Dwight Co. v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics, GMBH, No. 14 Civ. 00585, 2014 WL 2526965 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2014) C&D sued SPD for false advertising over its pregnancy test advertising. The court denied SPD’s motion to dismiss. The … Continue reading →

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