-
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
Netchoice amicus on behalf of Discord
Chris Sprigman and I just submitted this brief. The focus of the argument is the associational interests of Discord’s users, who want and need assistance from centralized content moderation in order to support their communities. from Blogger http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2023/12/netchoice-amicus-on-behalf-of-discord.html
Dastar bars false marking claims brought under Lanham Act (dubitante)
Urban Dollz LLC v. Lashify, Inc., 2023 WL 8292459, No. CV 23-1427-GW-AFMx (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2023) Super-interesting holding that, while there’s no patent field preemption against bringing false patent marking claims under the Lanham Act, Dastar (as expansively interpreted … Continue reading
using testimonials post-relationship failure can be a ROP problem
McCandless Group, LLC v. COY Collective, Inc., No. LA CV 21-02069-DOC-KES, 2023 WL 8351525 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2023) The individual defendants co-founded COY in 2019 to provide creator clients with a platform to offer subscription services. COY hired MG … Continue reading
California’s UCL potentially available against junk fees
Sepanossian v. National Ready Mix Co., — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2023 WL 7590798, No. B319260 (Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2023) Sepanossian, who operates a construction business, filed a class action against Ready Mix, which sells mixed concrete to small businesses for … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged california, consumer protection, false advertising, unfairness
Leave a comment
court finds that transferring title to mural also transferred (c); VARA and CMI claims against ad also fail
Williams v. Hy-Vee, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 3602813, No. 4:22-cv-00025-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa Mar. 15, 2023) Williams, a professional artist, was commissioned to paint an abstract mural on the wall of a building located in Des Moines, Iowa. The … Continue reading
Amicus brief on applying the Lanham Act to political speech post-JDI
In support of neither party. from Blogger http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2023/12/amicus-brief-on-applying-lanham-act-to.html
Earnings calls, recall notices not “commercial advertising or promotion,” but could be “of and concerning” largest market player
In re SoClean, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liab. Litig., 2023 WL 8006602, MDL No. 3021, No. 22-542 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 17, 2023) Because this is MDL with lots of claims, the facts are a bit complicated. SoClean is … Continue reading
too much complaining about copying triggers Dastar/preemption for other claims
Design Gaps, Inc. v. Hall, 2023 WL 8103156, No. 3:23-cv-186-MOC (W.D.N.C. Nov. 21, 2023) Design Gaps produces custom cabinetry for high-end homes; Hall is a former employee of Design Gaps who signed a nonsolicitation/noncompete clause but went to work for … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged copyright, dastar, false advertising, false designation of origin
Leave a comment
who has standing to challenge robot lawyers?
MillerKing, LLC v. DoNotPay, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, No. 3:23-CV-863-NJR, 2023 WL 8108547 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2023) “This case pits real lawyers against a robot lawyer.” Spoiler: the robot wins for lack of Article III standing. DoNotPay is an … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged false advertising, false designation of origin, standing
Leave a comment
Holly Herndon and AI in the New Yorker
Article here. I’m quoted. from Blogger http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2023/11/holly-herndon-and-ai-in-new-yorker.html