-
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
Needs more facts: insufficient allegations of dissemination doom Lanham Act claim
SB Diversified Prods., Inc. v. Murchison, No. 12cv2328, 2014 WL 3894353 (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2014) Previous opinion discussed here. SB sued Murchison for false advertising and unfair competition, claiming that Murchison, a competitor in the squirrel trap market, made … Continue reading
Product disparagement as trademark dilution?
Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Braintree Laboratories, Inc., 2014 WL 3850072, No. 13–12553 (D. Mass. Aug. 4, 2014) This is mostly a false advertising case, but stick around for the weird dilution ruling. The parties compete in the market for bowel … Continue reading
IPSC part 10: hodgepodge
Sixth Breakout Session The Patented Design Sarah Burstein What should the patented design cover? Require the design to be applied to a particular product, and signal that in the name/title. That better respects First Amendment concerns, notice function of patents, … Continue reading
IPSC part 6: copyright/TM enforcement
Fourth Breakout Session Copyright and Trademark Enforcement Do ‘Groundless Threats’ Statutes Curtail IP Over-Enforcement? William Gallagher Research interest: how disputes are negotiated and resolved outside of court, as most legal disputes are. Studying it qualitatively, based on interviews w/lawyers and … Continue reading
IPSC part 2: trademark theory
1st Breakout Session: Trademark Theory Harms, Benefits, and Justifications in Trademark Law Stacey Dogan © and patent are often considered to be about incentives (getting benefits), but TM law in the general view is about preventing harm/misinformation, at least in … Continue reading
bait and switch as both false advertising and trademark infringement
ADT LLC v. Vision Security, LLC, 2014 WL 3764152, No. 13–8119 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2014) ADT competes with Security Networks to sell alarm systems. Vision Security is an agent of Security Networks; it doesn’t manufacture alarm systems, but instead … Continue reading
Use of mark on product isn’t "ad" for insurance purposes
Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. Willowood USA, LLC, No. 6:13–cv–01923, 2014 WL 3797673 (D. Or. Aug. 1, 2014) Willowood was sued for trademark infringement and related causes of action by a former licensor, and sought insurance coverage. The … Continue reading
false advertising about design in the absence of secondary meaning?
Brian Lichtenberg, LLC v. Alex & Chloe, Inc., No. CV 13–06837, 2014 WL 3698317 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) Brian Lichtenberg (Brian) designs clothing and accessories, including parodies of designer brands, such as “Homiès” as a play on “Hermès” and … Continue reading
court says Lexmark doesn’t change trademark harm standard
Reynolds Consumer Prods. Inc. v. Handi-Foil Corp., No. 1:13–CV–214, 2014 WL 3615853 (E.D. Va. July 18, 2014) A jury found Handi-Foil liable for willful infringement of Reynolds’ unregistered trade dress, but in favor of Handi-Foil on all other accounts (including … Continue reading
Posted in trademark
Leave a comment
FTC announces settlement with "official" ticket seller that wasn’t
Details at the FTC’s site. I was interested in this because usually the FTC leaves alone cases in which a business victim is a likely plaintiff; it makes sense to use government resources to go after defendants who otherwise would … Continue reading