Category Archives: consumer protection

Trademark scholars roundtable: the consumer in different contexts

Session 3:  The Consumer in Different Trade Mark Contexts Do the questions that we have looked at in the first two sessions vary in different trademark and adjacent contexts? Is assessment of the reaction of the average consumer in trade … Continue reading

Posted in conferences, consumer protection, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, right of publicity, trademark | Leave a comment

Fourth Circuit destroys literal falsity

In re GNC Corp., — F.3d –, 2015 WL 3798174 (4thCir. June 19, 2015)   Well, this is a terrible opinion that makes no sense.  In the Fourth Circuit, if reasonable experts disagree, it’s now impossible for one to be … Continue reading

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

Trademark scholars roundtable: roles for the consumer in TM

Seventh Trademark Scholars Roundtable: The Construction of the Consumer in Trade Mark Law   Session 1: Roles for the Consumer in Trade Mark Law What role does the “consumer” (whether “average” or “reasonable” or otherwise) play in trade mark law? … Continue reading

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

Ninth Circuit rejects class certification because ads differed

Cabral v. Supple LLC, — Fed.Appx. —-, 2015 WL 3855142, No. 13–55943 (9th Cir. June 23, 2015)   The court of appeals vacated the certification of a class of purchasers of a dietary supplement. The certified class was “[a]ll persons … Continue reading

Posted in class actions, consumer protection, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

Court certifies class against JCPenney for allegedly false "sales"

Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp., 2015 WL 3478038, No. CV 12–0215 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2015)   Spann sued JCP, bringing the usual California claims, for allegedly “falsely advertising ‘original’ prices, ‘sale’ prices and corresponding price discounts for its private … Continue reading

Posted in california, class actions, consumer protection, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

violation of labeling law is presumptively material and deceptive

Brown v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 2015 WL 3398415, No. 11-cv-03082 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2015) (magistrate judge)   Plaintiffs sued Hain for selling cosmetics whose front labels used the word “organic,” but that did not contain at least 70% … Continue reading

Posted in california, class actions, consumer protection, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

Close but no cigar: "worked closely" claim is puffery

Springbrook Software, Inc. v. Douglas County, 2015 WL 2248449, No. 13–cv–760 (W.D. Wis. May 13, 2015) (magistrate judge)   Springbrook sued Douglas County and the City of Superior for breach of contract and related claims after they stopped paying fees … Continue reading

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

ascertainability defeats class but EULA doesn’t

Perrine v. Sega of America, Inc., No. 13-cv-01962, 2015 WL 2227846 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2015)   Gearbox developed and Sega produced the game “Aliens: Colonial Marines,” “held out as the canon sequel to James Cameron’s 1986 film ‘Aliens.’”  The … Continue reading

Posted in california, class actions, consumer protection, contracts, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

New Jersey court rejects ascertainabilty requirement for class actions

Daniels v. Hollister Co., — A.3d —-, 2014 WL 8808428, No. A–3629–13T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 13, 2015)   Of interest because it’s a state court within the Third Circuit rejecting that circuit’s view of “ascertainability” in class … Continue reading

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

SDNY allows consumer "organic" claims to proceed

Segedie v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 2015 WL 2168374, No. 14–cv–5029 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015)   Plaintiffs bought Earth’s Best food, body care, and home care products, and alleged that they were misleadingly labeled as “organic,” “natural,” or “all natural.”  … Continue reading

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