-
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
literal falsity as Q of fact v. law and other important issues in a dueling ladder case
Wing Enters., Inc. v. Tricam Indus., Inc., No. 17-cv-1769 (ECT/ECW), 2021 WL 63108 (D. Minn. Jan. 7, 2021) After remand because the court of appeals concluded that a materiality survey was wrongly excluded, the court here tries again in this … Continue reading
Nominative fair use in the Seventh Circuit: a practical tool
Data Mgmt. Ass’n Int’l v. Enterprise Warehousing Solutions, Inc., 2020 WL 7698368, No. 20 C 04711 (N.D. Ill Dec. 28, 2020) Without resolving burden of proof issues, the court uses nominative fair use to quickly resolve a case where fair … Continue reading
product changes as false advertising: TM may serve as express warranty of formulation & quality
Starr v. VSL Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. TDC-19-2173, 2020 WL 7694480 (D. Md. Dec. 28, 2020) This putative class action is related to the longstanding trademark/false advertising litigation between the VSL parties and Claudio De Simone parties, and probably qualifies as … Continue reading
business can assert California consumer protection claims against platform
Gaby’s Bags, LLC v. Mercari, Inc., No. C 20-00734 WHA, 2020 WL 7664455 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 25, 2020) After the court dismissed plaintiff’s Lanham Act false advertising claims against a platform because the plaintiff was a customer and not a … Continue reading
no Lanham Act claims, including false advertising, allowed over cannabis
Shulman v. Kaplan, 2020 WL 7094063, No. 2:19-CV-05413-AB (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2020) The parties compete in the cannabis market, and some defendants formerly worked with Shulman, but that relationship broke down. Shulman sued, alleging four federal claims and … Continue reading
Test yourself: would you have approved this “covid-free” claim?
From the NYT this weekend (h/t Zachary Schrag): “It’s time to put COVID on hold … and set out for the ultimate escape to the world’s only 6-star hotel, Quintessence Hotel. The sixth star is for our (and Anguilla’s) diligence … Continue reading
Another pandemic education case: false advertising fails, contract claim survives
Bergeron v. Rochester Inst. of Technology, No. 20-CV-6283 (CJS), 2020 WL 7486682 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2020) Different district, same result as this case involving Rensselaer Polytechnic. Contract/unjust enrichment claims survive based on allegations that RIT promised in-person learning, but conversion … Continue reading
reasonable consumer wouldn’t expect advertised in-person classes in pandemic (but contract claims survive)
Ford v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, No. 20-CV-470, 2020 WL 7389155 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2020) This is a putative class action against RPI for breach of contract, false advertising, and related claims based on the mid-semester pandemic shutdown of early 2020. … Continue reading
What Dastar took, does 1202 give back?
Another older case found in my year-end roundup. Pilla v. Gilat, 2020 WL 1309086, No. 19-CV-2255 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) Pilla provides “professional architectural services to various construction projects.” Defendants own a “luxury construction project” at 324–326 West 108th … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged copyright, dastar, does 1202 give back? cmi, trademark, What Dastar took
Leave a comment