Category Archives: http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post

Reasonable psychologist would treat "must pay" dues as mandatory

In re APA Assessment Fee Litigation, — F.3d —-, 2014 WL 4377770, No. 13–7032 (Sept. 5, 2014) The American Psychological Association (APA) is a national nonprofit organization representing clinical, research, and academic psychologists.  Members pay annual fees billed on a … Continue reading

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

trade dress must be visual; Octane Fitness applies to Lanham Act

Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, Nos. 13-3305 & 14-1572, — F.3d – (3d Cir. Sept. 4, 2014) Fair Wind, a sailing school, sued Virgin Island Sailing School (VISS) and its co-founder Scott Dempster, alleging trade dress infringement and unjust … Continue reading

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

Avis tries harder–to obscure extra fees

Schwartz v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, 2014 WL 4272018, No. 11–4052 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2014) I’m blogging this case because of its discussion of the use of consumer perception experts in class actions, which seems to be on … Continue reading

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

Wells Fargo can’t show irreparable harm from lost control of goodwill

A great example of why trademark owners are nervous about facing eBay. Wells Fargo and Co. v. ABD Insurance and Financial Services, Inc., 2014 WL 4312021, No. C 12–3856  (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) The district court previously denied Wells … Continue reading

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

"strictest industry standards" can be false when performance is bad enough

Muhler Company, Inc. v. Window World of N. Charleston LLC, 2014 WL 4269078, No. 2:11–cv–00851 (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 2014) This is a default judgment.  The parties compete to supply and install replacement windows in Charleston County, South Carolina, and in … Continue reading

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

Business consumer can’t bring Lanham Act claim after Lexmark

Locus Telecommunications, Inc. v. Talk Global, LLC, No. 14–1205, 2014 WL 4271635 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2014) Defendant Expansys allegedly made a false statement on a website promoting its product, personal identification numbers (“PINs”) used to add minutes to prepaid cell … Continue reading

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

Breaking (season) bad: Apple’s season pass promise could violate UCL

Lazebnik v. Apple, Inc., 2014 WL 4275008, No. 5:13–CV–04145 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2014) The plaintiff sued Apple for misrepresenting its Breaking Bad “season pass.”  As the court explained, “[f]rom the time Season 5 of Breaking Bad was first announced, … Continue reading

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

Distributor can be sued for direct false advertising under Lexmark

Toddy Gear, Inc. v. Navarre Corp., 2014 WL 4271631,  No. 13 CV 8703 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2014) Toddy Gear makes the Toddy Smart Cloth, “a double-sided microfiber cloth with an antimicrobial coating crafted for scratch-free cleaning of extremely sensitive … Continue reading

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

Irreparable harm after Herb Reed

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Grenade Beverage LLC, No. 1:13-cv-00770 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014) Via the Trademark Blog, this case applying Herb Reed but finding irreparable harm based on the same reasoning rejected in Herb Reed shows just … Continue reading

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

taking control: Honeywell TM, ad claims lose, (c) continue

Honeywell International Inc. v. ICM Controls Corp., No. 11–569, 2014 WL 4248434 (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2014) Honeywell sued ICM for patent infringement, copyright infringement, violation of the Lanham Act, and violation of state law.  (I will ignore the patent … Continue reading

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