-
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
intent to abandon isn’t enough for abandonment, 9th Circuit rules
Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Financial Services, Inc., — F.3d —, 2014 WL 806385 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2014) (don’t know how I missed this in March, but catching up now) Opinion below denying a preliminary injunction … Continue reading
Bait and switch advertising isn’t TM infringement
Sussman-Automatic Corp. v. Spa World Corp., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2014 WL 1651953 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2014) Sussman sued Spa World and its principals for bait-and-switch advertising. They allegedly purported to sell Sussman’s “Mr. Steam” steam shower and spa … Continue reading
eCigarette advertising: past is prologue
Smithsonian National Museum of American History Dr. Robert Jackler, “Freedom to Vape”: Unregulated Exuberance in Electronic Cigarette Advertising (Dr. Jackler is talking to FDA and to Congress about the same issues on his trip to the East Coast) Note: I’m … Continue reading
dig if you will the picture
Bold Rock bottle in green Rolling Rock bottle Rolling Rock and Bold Rock. Too bold? http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Posted in trademark
Leave a comment
Phone resale not infringing even when reseller defaults
T–Mobile USA, Inc. v. Chong, 2014 WL 1350896, No. C13–29 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 4, 2014) T-Mobile moved for the second time for default judgment; the court only granted it in part, though giving T-Mobile what it wanted in the form … Continue reading
Posted in contracts, trademark
Leave a comment
Uber alles except unfair competition
I predict that Mark Lemley will not like this decision but that Mark McKenna will. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2014 WL 1338148 No. 13–10769 (D. Mass. Mar. 27, 2014) Plaintiffs sued Uber for false advertising, unfair … Continue reading
using metatags/buying AdWords isn’t trademark use
Radiancy, Inc. v. Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc., 2014 WL 1318374, No. 13–cv–3767 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2014) And now for a different result on the pleading standards for affirmative defenses! Among the many arguments in this case, Viatek raised unclean … Continue reading
Next Great Copyright Act Conference, quasi-copyright
Quasi-Copyright Reforms Moderator: Hank Barry, Sidley Austin Rebecca Tushnet, Georgetown Law School I’m going to talk about managing the interface between copyright and several other rights—in the very first panel of the conference, Wendy Gordon reminded us that various doctrines … Continue reading
The PTO for children
I recently attended an event at which the PTO had a children’s booth. Highlights from the Oct. 2012 Trademark Activity Book we received: The PTO has Kleenex and Band-Aid’s back against the threat of genericity. The PTO is not worried … Continue reading
Posted in trademark
Leave a comment
TM issues, you get what you pay for edition
Marty Schwimmer reports on the Orthodox Jewish Congregations’ lawsuit against Urban Tortilla for the latter’s new U-in-a-circle logo. Schwimmer continues that Urban Tortilla paid $299 for its logo, from a contest among designers. (See also: continuing immiseration of many creative … Continue reading
Posted in trademark
Leave a comment