Category Archives: Uncategorized

labeling grandfathered drug in standard format doesn’t misrepresent it as FDA-approved

Posted on January 14, 2020 by rtushnet

Belcher Pharms., LLC v. Hospira, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d –, No. 8:17-cv-2353-T-30AAS, 2020 WL 102744 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2020) “Epinephrine—a drug that is a medical necessity—has been in short supply on and off for nearly a decade.” Hospira … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reading list: Pam Samuelson on legal writing

Posted on January 14, 2020 by rtushnet

Pamela Samuelson, Good Legal Writing: of Orwell and WindowPanes  From the archives: Excellent short piece on legal writing, for students and other legal writers of all kinds.  In itself, interesting to see how a groundbreaking female academic framed things in … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

confusion is not irreparable harm in false advertising case

Posted on January 14, 2020 by rtushnet

AMETEK CTS US, Inc. v. Advanced Test Equipment Corp., No.19-cv-02348-H-AHG, 2020 WL 133888 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2020) The parties operate in the market for “sophisticated electronic instruments in the automotive, telecommunications, energy, aerospace, power, research, medical and industrial markets.” … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Amicus brief in Booking.com

Posted on January 14, 2020 by rtushnet

Joined by a number of able trademark scholars, I filed this amicus brief in Booking.com in support of neither party, arguing that (1) genericness standards need to take into account the risks of overassertion/overprotection, and (2) unfair competition doctrine provides … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Amicus brief in Google v. Oracle

Posted on January 13, 2020 by rtushnet

Like everyone else, I filed an amicus, this one on behalf of copyright scholars, focused on fair use. Other currently submitted briefs are here. from Blogger https://ift.tt/35MOKNd

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reading list: disclosures as compelled commercial speech

Posted on January 10, 2020 by rtushnet

Reading list: Aaron Stenz, Note: The Controversial Demise of Zauderer: Revitalizing Zauderer Post-NIFLA, 104 Minn. L. Rev. 553 (2019). The First Amendment broadly stands for the idea that government attempts to curtail the right of the American people to both … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Malwarebytes: same result, new puzzles on remand for 230 immunity

Posted on January 6, 2020 by rtushnet

Enigma Software Group USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2019 WL 7373959, No. 17-17351 (9th Cir. Dec. 31, 2019) New opinion, same result; no rehearing en banc. Because the parties are competitors, §230 does not provide Malwarebytes with … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

another timeshare exit company can be sued under state law, but not Lanham Act

Posted on January 6, 2020 by rtushnet

Orange Lake Country Club, Inc. v. Reed Hein & Assoc., LLC, 2019 WL 7423517, No: 6:17-cv-1542-Orl-78DCI (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2019) Another timeshare case, this one kicking out Lanham Act claims but not FDUTPA deceptive practices claims on proximate cause. … Continue reading →

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

“most experienced” is puffery, but misrepresenting degree of responsibility for projects could be false

Posted on January 2, 2020 by rtushnet

Cypress Advisors, Inc. v. Davis, 2019 WL 7290948, No. 17-cv-01219-MSK-KLM (D. Colo. Aug. 28, 2019) Cypress provides financial advice to clients in the franchise restaurant industry. Defendant Kent Davis used to work there, but he left and started a competing … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“diet” isn’t misleading for soda even if surveys say it is

Posted on January 1, 2020 by rtushnet

Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 2019 WL 7287554, No. 18-16721 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2019) Becerra alleged that Dr Pepper violated the usual California consumer-fraud laws by branding Diet Dr Pepper using the word “diet.” She cited dictionary definitions … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment