-
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
Category Archives: trademark
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
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
religious catalog doesn’t have a prayer on trade dress claims
Gerffert Co., Inc. v. Dean, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2014 WL 4258275, No. 09–CV–266 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2014) Gerffert sued Dean for infringement of its trade dress in catalogs for religious products, catalogs that featured the “iconic” artwork of Fratelli Bonella, … Continue reading
Posted in trademark
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
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
#1 with a bullet: Nutribullet wins false advertising claim, but its green isn’t inherently distinctive
Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC, 2014 WL 4187982, No. CV 14–03954 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014) Homeland and Euro-Pro compete in the home blender market. Homeland sells three Nutribullet products: Classic, Sport, and Pro. Euro-Pro sells Ninja blenders, … Continue reading
Presumed irreparable: 3d Circuit applies eBay to all Lanham Act claims
Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2014 WL 4194094, No. 13–2290 (3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2014) This case had an INTA amicus brief making the trademark bar’s strongest arguments for Lanham Act exceptionalism, which here means … Continue reading
I’ll give you four factors, and the last three don’t count: Lovelace film is fair use
Arrow Productions, LTD. v. Weinstein Company LLC, No. 13 Civ. 5488 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2014) Someday I might stop blogging copyright fair use and trademark defendant wins on the pleadings, but today is not that day. Also, I appreciate the … Continue reading
Lexmark applied to false association claims under 43(a)(1)(A)
Lundgren v. Ameristar Credit Solutions, Inc., 2014 WL 4079962, No. 3:12–263 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2014) Ameristar is a “debt settlement and tax resolution business,” while Lundgren “was previously in the mortgage service industry and began offering tax resolution services … Continue reading
Dastar-ing about architecture: 7th Circuit reverses dismissal of credit claim
M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates, Inc. v. Strabala, No. 12-2256 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2014) Previous coverage, wherein I was not enthusiastic about the district court decision finding that there couldn’t be a §43(a) claim based on an allegedly … Continue reading