Category Archives: Uncategorized

WIPIP Panel 6: Design and Brand; Protectable Subject Matter; Copyright Theory and Doctrine II

Posted on February 28, 2026 by rtushnet

A Pantone Prerogative: Defining the Privilege to Standardize Color (Felicia Caponigri) Color standards have been around for a long time. Pantone developed standards and uses its system to promote the colors; registration for the matching system and the color chip. … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

WIPIP Panel 5: Trademark Doctrine

Posted on February 28, 2026 by rtushnet

 The Arbitrary Myth (Dustin Marlan) Connecting the Abercrombie critique literature w/some of the critical/cultural appropriation theory. Judge Friendly says: it need hardly be added that fanciful and arbitrary terms enjoy the protection accorded to suggestive terms. Catachresis: strained metaphor—arbitrary marks … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

WIPIP Panel 4: Emerging Technologies

Posted on February 27, 2026 by rtushnet

The European Accent of U.S. Digital Platform Speech (Brian Downing) We are often told that self-governance by corporate platforms is better than government control, but his experience was that freedom of action wasn’t free. US gov’t defers to platforms, but … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“shipping protection fee” providing no extra protection was plausibly misleading drip pricing

Posted on February 27, 2026 by rtushnet

DeMarco v. DNVB, Inc. (Thursday Boot Co.), No. 25-CV-3076 (GHW) (RFT), 2025 WL 4378637 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2025) (R&R) Thursday Boot sells shoes, apparel, handbags, and accessories on its website, which offers “free shipping and returns in the U. S.” … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

WIPIP Panel 3: Deepfakes, Celebrities, and Movies

Posted on February 27, 2026 by rtushnet

A Digital Right of Publicity for the AI World (Emma Perot) Prehistory: ROP covers lookalikes, soundalikes, video game avatars (at least for realism). Persona as training data. Theories of personality: users informed about use; many social media companies do not … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

WIPIP Panel 2: Copyright and Culture

Posted on February 27, 2026 by rtushnet

  Copyright’s Invisible Hand: Subsidizing America’s Cultural Institutions (Guy Rub) © sometimes requires payment from more intensive users, sometimes not. Exclusive rights: unbundling—buy a book to read v. buy a book to adapt to movie. Fair use is sometimes bundling: … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

WIPIP, BU Panel 1: Trademark Theory and Practice

Posted on February 27, 2026 by rtushnet

Trademarks, Functionality, and Competition (Glynn Lunney)          Came in late; 3d Circuit is not a good circuit for trade dress (11.8% success for claimants, almost always on functionality (71% of wins)). 5th Circuit at the other end—50% … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Deadly automatic litterbox might be falsely advertised as “safe”

Posted on February 25, 2026 by rtushnet

Gomez v. PetPivot, Inc., 2026 WL 507708, No. 25-cv-5622 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2026) “Safe” is the kind of word that is general enough that it might be puffery, but courts think that safety is important enough that they sometimes … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Amicus in support of cert in Lanham Act intent/damages case

Posted on February 24, 2026 by rtushnet

 Truth in Advertising, Barton Beebe, Mark Lemley, Alexandra Roberts and I just filed a brief arguing that the Supreme Court should clarify the role of intent in Lanham Act cases. from Blogger http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2026/02/amicus-in-support-of-cert-in-lanham-act.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Does “Dead Weeds in 1 Day” mean the entire weed will die, or just the visible part?

Posted on February 23, 2026 by rtushnet

Scotts Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 2026 WL 482655, No. 2:24-cv-4199 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2026) Previously, the court rejected Scotts’ request for a preliminary injunction of the trade dress of P&G’s Spruce brand of weed killer products, finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment