-
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
Switching tomato varieties but keeping nearly exact labels may be misleading
Valiente v. Simpson Imports, Ltd., No. 23-cv-02214-AMO (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2024) According to the complaint, San Marzano tomatoes “originate[] from the town of San Marzano sul Sarno, near Naples, Italy.” San Marzano tomatoes “bear a special designation: D.O.P. (Denominazione … Continue reading
Descriptive mark Bike+ w/minimal marketing fails to show reverse confusion
World Champ Tech LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., 2024 WL 665181, No. 21-cv-03202-LB (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2024) WCT offers a mobile-fitness app called “Bike+” and owns a trademark registration for that name. It sued Peloton for trademark infringement and … Continue reading
CFP: trademark, competition, or antitrust law
I received a request to disseminate this CFP from the Jerzy Wiszniewski Foundation. Works in any of the following fields may be entered in the competition: Օ Trademark law Օ Competition law Օ Antitrust law. The work may be a … Continue reading
New piece: A Hobgoblin Comes for Internet Regulation
My contribution to From the DMCA to the DSA—A Transatlantic Dialogue on Online Platform Regulation and Copyright. from Blogger http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2024/02/new-piece-hobgoblin-comes-for-internet.html
Cardozo A&ELJ symposium, Trademark
Panel #2, TM, moderated by Vice Dean Felix Wu Jack Daniels says that use as a trademark is special: like copyright’s bête noire, confusion caused by trademark use is the central concern of trademark law. While I have many questions … Continue reading
Cardozo A&ELJ symposium: Amy Adler Keynote and Warhol panel
Keynote Address, Amy Adler, (How) Should Courts Interpret the Meaning of Art? Warhol was confused/confusing; lower courts are all over the place in response. Ushered in sea change in terms of how it was used in art cases. For years, … Continue reading
False patent marking claims survive even when Dastar bars false advertising claims based on “innovation”
Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., 2024 WL 629985, No. W-22-CV-00776-ADA-DTG, No. W-22-CV-00777-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2024) (R&R) Recommendation: Dastar should block Qingdao’s Lanham Act false advertising counterclaims based on Lashify’s claim to be the originator of lash … Continue reading
Damages questions preclude certifying a Lanham Act false advertising plaintiff class
Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, 2024 WL 559235, No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2024) The court denied certification to a proposed class of dentists/orthodontists over SDC’s allegedly false advertising for its plastic aligners/teledentistry services, based on difficulties identifying harm/causation. Under … Continue reading
misrepresentation to Amazon isn’t “commercial advertising or promotion”
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Wong, 2024 WL 553695, NO. C19-0990JLR (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2024) This default judgment actually analyzes the false advertising claims, which is why I note it. Amazon and Nite Ize sued Wong for selling hundreds of thousands … Continue reading