-
Recent Posts
- Santa Clara IP Conference: Where Do We Go From Here?
- Santa Clara IP conference: How It’s Going: What Went Wrong?
- Santa Clara School of Law: Intellectual Property Conference: How It Started, How It’s Going: What Went Right?
- False endorsement claim can proceed against gov’t issued license plates and gov’t facility named for Roberto Clemente
- Non-TM owner can use 43(a) to challenge confusing use
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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
Category Archives: consumer protection
court borrows limitations period from consumer protection law for Lanham Act claim
Cannella v. Brennan, No. 2:12-CV-1247 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2014) Plaintiffs First Senior Financial Group, Phillip Cannella, and Joann Small sued “Watchdog,” an anonymous blogger, and Doe defendants, ultimately identifying Krista Brennan as Watchdog and the Doe defendants as Granite … Continue reading
Yelp statements about its filters not protected by anti-SLAPP law or CDA
Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc., 2014 WL 3661491, No. B247151 (Cal. Ct. App. July 24, 2014) Demetriades operates restaurants and sued Yelp under California’s UCL and FAL based on claims about the accuracy and efficacy of its “filter” of unreliable or … Continue reading
Using up most of settlement fund shows settlement is reasonable
Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 11-cv-05188, 2014 WL 3404531 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2014) This is a final settlement approval of claims based on products labeled “All Natural” or “100% Natural,” when they allegedly contained synthetic ingredients. The settlement … Continue reading
Reading list: food law
Regent University’s law review had a symposium on food law. Here are the resulting articles, essentially all about advertising/disclosures: Foreword: Food Law and Its Place at the Legal Academy Michael T. Roberts Defining Natural Foods: The Search for a Natural … Continue reading
Twiqbal kills consumer class action in 2d Circuit
DiMuro v. Clinique Laboratories, LLC, — Fed.Appx. —-, 2014 WL 3360586, No. 13–4551 (2d Cir. July 10, 2014) The Second Circuit quickly affirms the dismissal of a putative consumer class action based on Clinique’s marketing of seven different “Repairwear” cosmetics. … Continue reading
correcting false advertising before money changes hands isn’t enough
Helde v. Knight Transportation, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (W.D. Wash. 2013) This is mostly a wages case, but it provides a reminder that bait and switch advertising is generally actionable under consumer protection law. Here, plaintiffs claimed a … Continue reading
multiplicity of products and labels makes class unascertainable
Bruton v. Gerber Products Co., No. 12-CV-02412, 2014 WL 2860995 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2014) Bruton brought the usual California claims against Gerber for mislabeling certain food products intended for children under 2. She challenged Gerber’s nutrient content claims and … Continue reading
Class can be certified when product is allegedly worthless
Ortega v. Natural Balance, Inc., 2014 WL 2782329, No. CV 13–5942 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2014) The court granted class certification for a California class of consumers of Cobra Sexual Energy, a dietary supplement containing various herbs, extracts, and other … Continue reading
Grande deception?
Starbucks and the “free” college education for its workers: The reporting on Starbucks’ offer has gone beyond the headline—and if treated like ordinary advertising, that headline is misleading. As it turns out, Starbucks will only pay in full for two … Continue reading
Such a lonely word: "honest" isn’t puffery
Salazar v. Honest Tea, Inc., 2014 WL 2593601, No. 2:13-cv-02318 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2014) Salazar alleged that HT’s Honey Green Tea bottles didn’t contain the amount of antioxidants represented on their labels, where independent lab testing determined that the … Continue reading