-
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
confusion over confusion: court holds that disparagement can be infringing
Nutreance LLC v. Primark, LLC, 2020 WL 3892995, No. 4:18-cv-00098-SRC (E.D. Mo. Jul. 10, 2020) “This is a trademark infringement/false advertising case involving competitors in the nutritional-supplements market.” The court holds that the alleged bad conduct is actionable, but unfortunately … Continue reading
July 29 Webinar – The McCarthy Series: What the BOOKING.COM Ruling Means for Trademark Law
I’ll be part of the panel: On Wednesday, July 29th, at 12 noon Eastern Standard Time (9 AM PST), the McCarthy Institute will host a webinar to discuss the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in USPTO. v. Booking.com B.V. … Continue reading
Sue Bee beats suit: “pure” survey not good enough to show deception over trace pesticide amounts
Tran v. Sioux Honey Assoc., 2020 WL 3989444, No. 17-cv-00110-JLS-SS (C.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2020) Tran brought the usual California claims based on Sioux Honey products labeled as “Pure” and “100% Pure,” arguing that the products were mislabeled because they … Continue reading
expert can’t substitute for survey evidence (at least w/o experience w/consumer reactions)
Kurin, Inc. v. Magnolia Medical Technol., Inc., 2020 WL 4049977, No. 18-cv-1060-L-LL (S.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2020) A lot going on here in this false advertising case about blood collection devices (one called Steripath); I will omit a lot of … Continue reading
court rejects survey indicating consumers think “white chips” have white chocolate
Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., No. 19-cv-07467-PJH, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2020 WL 4039365 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2020) Plaintiffs brought the usual California claims against Ghirardelli’s “Premium Baking Chips Classic White Chips.” They sought to bolster the plausibility of the … Continue reading
does unclean hands require actual deception? answers may differ for TM/false advertising
Certified Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Avicenna Nutraceutical, LLC, No. 18-56631, — Fed.Appx. —-, 2020 WL 4037411 (9th Cir. Jul. 17, 2020) This memorandum opinion comes with a partial dissent calling out the majority’s differential treatment of §43(a)(1)(A) and (B) claims for … Continue reading
calling pork “prime” doesn’t misleadingly imply USDA grading
Davis v. Fresh Market, Inc., 2020 WL 3489369, No. 19-CV-24245-PCH (S.D. Fla. Jun. 26, 2020) Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Florida consumer protection law by misrepresenting, via the name, that their Chairman’s Reserve Prime Pork product had been graded prime … Continue reading
flushable wipes injunctive relief class must go, damages class can stay
Kurtz v. Costco Wholesale Corp., — Fed.Appx. —-, 2020 WL 3480830, Nos. 17-1856-cv, 17-1858-cv (2d Cir. Jun. 26, 2020) This is a flushable wipes case. The court of appeals decertifies an injunctive relief class under NY law, but allows a … Continue reading
NY high court reiterates that “consumer-oriented” is broad, covers statements to thousands of gov’t employees
Plavin v. Group Health Inc., 35 N.Y.3d 1 (Mar. 24, 2020) The Third Circuit certified to NY’s highest court whether a plaintiff “sufficiently alleged consumer-oriented conduct to assert claims under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for damages incurred … Continue reading
Booking.com: validity continues to be disconnected from scope of rights
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19–46 (Jun. 30, 2020) Kind of what I expected, though maybe a little worse in its disregard of scope issues. Ginsburg writes the majority (Sotomayor concurred and Breyer dissented). “Generic.com” is … Continue reading