-
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: Uncategorized
T-Mobile is plausibly liable for acts of explicitly authorized dealers
City of New York v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2020 WL 1498522, No. 451540/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Mar. 23, 2020) The City of New York and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) sued T-Mobile, its subsidiary MetroPCS New … Continue reading
A blueberry bagel that is mostly imitation blueberry is plausibly misleading
Izquierdo v. Panera Bread Co., No. 18-CV-12127 (VSB), 2020 WL 1503557 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) Panera sold a “blueberry bagel” that allegedly wasn’t. [My father thinks that bagels with fruit etc. in them already aren’t bagels, but the allegation here … Continue reading
TheRealReal is ok except where it is FakeFake
Chanel, Inc. v. The RealReal, Inc., 2020 WL 1503422, No. 18-CV-10626 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) Very interesting case: Chanel sued TRR for trademark infringement etc. for allegedly overclaiming its association with Chanel by prominently advertising how much Chanel there … Continue reading
grey goods: materiality is key
Dentsply Sirona, Inc. v. Dental Brands For Less LLC, No. 15 Civ. 8775 (LGS), 2020 WL 1643891 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020) Trademark confusion is sometimes a normative conclusion, not an empirical one, even though the language surrounding it is empirical. … Continue reading
2d Circuit: no irreparable injury where website tracks clicks to buy
Carson Optical, Inc. v. Alista Corp., No. 19-2509, — Fed.Appx. —-, 2020 WL 1683460 (Mem) (2d Cir. Apr. 7, 2020) Interesting—the Second Circuit approves the district court’s reasoning that online sales can be tracked perfectly, and thus financial harm from … Continue reading
“Maximum Strength” is plausibly misleading when cheaper Regular Strength has more active ingredient by volume
Al Haj v. Pfizer Inc., 2019 WL 3202807, No. 17 C 6730 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 16, 2019) Al Haj alleged that Pfizer deceived consumers by charging more for “Maximum Strength” Robitussin cough syrup than for “Regular Strength” Robitussin even though … Continue reading
100% Pure Aloe can contain preservatives, stabilizers in the absence of evidence from consumers that they care
Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2020 WL 1429214, No. 19-1850 (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2020) The court explains: Plaintiffs brought state consumer deception claims [under 12 different states’ laws] against defendant Fruit of the Earth and its … Continue reading
antitrust claim based in part on false advertising in concentrated market survives
Chase Manufacturing, Inc. v. Johns Manville Corp., 2020 WL 1433504, No. 19-cv-00872-MEH (D. Colo. Mar. 23, 2020) (magistrate) Chase sued JM for violations of the Lanham Act and the Sherman Act for tying and monopolization. JM sells construction products, including … Continue reading
230 protects anti-malware vendor against noncompetitors
Asurvio LP v. Malwarebytes Inc., No. 5:18-cv-05409-EJD, 2020 WL 1478345 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2020) Despite unfavorable precedent, Malwarebytes secures dismissal of this Lanham Act false advertising (and common law disparagement/tortious interference/unfair competition/ violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act … Continue reading
“no soy protein” claim for dog food plausibly indicates no soy
Rice-Sherman v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc., No. 19-cv-03613-WHO, 2020 WL 1245130 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020) Plaintiffs alleged that Big Heart falsely markets its Grain Free Easy to Digest Salmon Sweet Potato & Pumpkin Recipe Dog Food as “Grain … Continue reading