-
Recent Posts
- Mexican flag and “taste of Mexico” not enough to deceive reasonable consumers about non-Mexican origin, 2d Cir rules
- court: there’s no right to jury trial when seeking only injunction/disgorgement in false advertising case
- alleged price bait-and-switch with large “processing fee” suffices to plead Lanham Act false advertising
- Great balls of fire: lawsuit over malt sold looking nearly identical to whisky can continue
- Second Circuit signals some minimal flexibility on Polaroid analysis in another strip club false endorsement case
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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
Category Archives: consumer protection
overclaiming study results to apply to unstudied product can be false/misleading
In re Riddell Concussion Reduction Litig., No. 13–7585, 2015 WL 4640425 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2015) The plaintiffs sued Riddell for marketing football helmets based on allegedly false or misleading claims that the helmets were equipped with unique concussion reduction … Continue reading
IPSC: Copyright again
Copyright History Shyam Balganesh University of Pennsylvania Law School The Questionable Origins of the Copyright Infringement Analysis Jerome Frank’s infamous/canonical © infringement test from Arnstein v. Porter, influential across the country. Step 1: actual copying, dissection allowed, expert testimony … Continue reading
4th Circuit denies rehearing in In re GNC
😦 If this ruling sticks and is actually applied in Lanham Act cases (something of which I am uncertain), then the resulting circuit split would probably justify Supreme Court review, given the Court’s newfound interest in 43(a)(1)(B). http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Claims about computer expertise aren’t puffery to ordinary consumers
Burton v. iYogi, Inc., 2015 WL 4385665, No. 13–CV–6926 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2015) iYogi provides computer diagnostics and repair, general troubleshooting, updates to computer drivers, security protection, and PC speed and performance optimization. To market itself, iYogi offers “Free … Continue reading
Uber’s safety claims not all puffery
L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2015 WL 4397706, No. 15-cv-01257 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2015) Uber makes various safety-related claims, such as its website’s claims to offer the “SAFEST RIDES ON … Continue reading
BBB claims about its own ratings process not protected by First Amendment
Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Palm Beach County, Inc., No. 4D13-3916 (Fla. Ct. App. June 3, 2015) Expect more detailed analysis from Ann Lipton soon. CC received an F grade from BBB and sued for … Continue reading
CD Cal rejects In re GNC for all the right reasons
Zakaria v. Gerber Products Co., No. 15-cv-00200 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2015) Zakaria sued Gerber, bringing the usual California claims, based on Gerber’s alleged misrepresentations that Good Start Gentle infant formula reduces the risk to infants of developing atopic … Continue reading
False establishment claims not actionable under consumer protection law
Aloudi v. Intramedic Research Group, LLC, 2015 WL 4148381, No. 15-cv-00882 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 9, 2015) Aloudi brought the usual California/warranty claims against IRG for its claims about its JavaSLIM product, a “green coffee bean extract weight loss formula.” … Continue reading
Amicus seeking rehearing in In re GNC
Brian Wolfman and I just filed this amicus on behalf of law professors seeking rehearing in the In re GNC case, which badly misunderstood literal falsity. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
And his fate is still unlearn’d: Subway overcharge claim fails
Hollander v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 50991(U), 2015 WL 4077193, No. 160972/13 (Sup. Ct. June 25, 2015) Hollander sued the MTA on behalf of purchasers of 7–Day and 30–Day MetroCards, alleging they were falsely advertised because … Continue reading