Author Archives: rtushnet

Slow fashion: checkerboard design plausibly infringes another checkerboard design

Posted on July 3, 2024 by rtushnet

Hian v. Louis Vuitton USA Inc, 2024 WL 3237591, No. 22-3742 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 28, 2024) The court tosses out most of an independent fashion designer’s claims against LVMH, while preserving one copyright infringement claim based on a distorted checkerboard … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

NetChoice and Calvinball: Initial thoughts

Posted on July 2, 2024 by rtushnet

I understand if you don’t think that the First Amendment is an area where SCOTUS is really doing “law” as we were taught it, but as a distraction for myself I have been thinking about (1) the idea that facial … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

lawsuit against plaintiffs’ expert witness fails on First Amendment grounds

Posted on July 1, 2024 by rtushnet

LTL Mgmt. LLC v. Moline, 2024 WL 3219683, No. 23-02990 (GC) (JTQ) (D.N.J. Jun. 28, 2024) Not currently in bankruptcy, LTL—J&J’s solution to its talc woes—decided to sue a critic for her scientific conclusions about talc risks. The court dismisses … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

9th Circuit holds that California’s Sherman Act can be enforced by private plaintiffs

Posted on July 1, 2024 by rtushnet

Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2024 WL 3213277, No. 22-16656 (9th Cir. Jun. 28, 2024) In a surprisingly-to-me divided opinion, the majority rejects a theory that private claims under the UCL using California’s Sherman Act as a … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

bad influence: claims against vodka producer proceed, including failure to disclose endorser payments

Posted on June 27, 2024 by rtushnet

Sava v. 21st Century Spirits, LLC, 2024 WL 3161625, No. 22 C 6083 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 25, 2024) 21st Century sells Blue Ice Vodka and uses influencers to promote it. Plaintiffs brought claims under the state consumer protection statutes of … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Initial thoughts on Elster

Posted on June 17, 2024 by rtushnet

In part so as not to repudiate big chunks of Tam/Brunetti, the Court instead delivers a major rebuke to Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (content-based regulation triggers strict scrutiny), except it doesn’t tell us the scope … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Is a free trial version “commercial speech”?

Posted on June 11, 2024 by rtushnet

Enigma Software Gp. USA LLC v. Malwarebytes Inc., 2024 WL 2883671, No. 17-cv-02915-EJD (N.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2024) This is the latest decision in long-running litigation over Malwarebytes’ characterization of Enigma’s competing cybersecurity and anti-malware software as “malicious,” a “threat,” … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

where ingredients list can’t clarify ambiguity, “manage blood sugar” claim is plausibly misleading

Posted on June 10, 2024 by rtushnet

Prescott v. Abbott Laboratories, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2024 WL 2843092, No. 23-cv-04348-PCP (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2024) Abbott Laboratories’s Glucerna line of powders and shakes are marketed as scientifically designed for people with diabetes to help manage blood sugar. Plaintiffs … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“#1 Brand” claim was literally false because of apples-to-oranges comparison

Posted on June 10, 2024 by rtushnet

Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Labs., Inc., No. 23 Civ. 10849 (LGS), 2024 WL 2853622 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 4, 2024) Finding Zesty Paws’ “#1 Brand” claim literally false, the court grants a preliminary injunction despite Zesty Paws’ attempt to create a … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Another challenge to “up to 8 hours of relief” proceeds

Posted on June 4, 2024 by rtushnet

Sheiner v. Supervalu Inc., 2024 WL 2803030, No. 22 Civ. 10262 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2024) Supervalu sold a “Maximum Strength Lidocaine Patch” product which contained “topical anesthetic 4% Lidocaine” which “desensitize[s] aggravated nerves” to provide “temporary relief of pain” … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment