-
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
NOCI to eBay protected against tortious interference claim by Noerr-Pennington, but defamation survives
Verbena Products LLC v. Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA, Inc., 2020 WL 2988587, No. 19-23616-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2020) Verbena (aka Beautyvice) sells cosmetic and beauty care products on eBay. Defendant Yellow Brand “is a leading global provider of online … Continue reading
Rule 9(b) applies to false advertising Lanham Act claims against SmileDirect
Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, 2020 WL 2850146, No. 19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn. Jun. 2, 2020) SmileDirect sells plastic aligners for orthodontic use. Its SmileDirect program uses teledentistry as an alternative to conventional orthodontic care. The American Dental Association filed a complaint … Continue reading
overstatement of claims in patent case/potential customer liability could be false advertising
Shure Inc. v. ClearOne, Inc., 2020 WL 2839294, No. 19-1343-RGA-CJB (D. Del. Jun. 1, 2020) (magistrate R&R) Skipping substantive design patent stuff (sorry, Sarah Burstein). The parties compete in the installed audio-conferencing market and have a history of litigation, including … Continue reading
Just stocking a falsely advertised product isn’t enough for contributory liability
In re Outlaw Laboratory, LLP, 2020 WL 2797425, No. 18-CV-0840-GPC (S.D. Cal. May 29, 2020) Plaintiff makes male enhancement products, allegedly in compliance with the DHSEA. It sued 51 convenience and liquor stores in the San Diego, California area; 23 … Continue reading
“Belgium 1926” label on chocolate plausibly indicates current Belgian origin
Hesse v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 2020 WL 2793014 No. 19-cv-972 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2020) The forgiving plausibility standard allows consumer protection claims about Godiva’s use of “Belgium 1926” on its American-made chocolates to continue. The court points out that, … Continue reading
“truly tiny” disclaimer at bottom of website didn’t prevent factual issue on misleadingness
Lemberg Law, LLC v. eGeneration Marketing, Inc., 2020 WL 2813177, No. 18-cv-570 (CSH) (D. Conn. May 29, 2020) Lemberg sued eGeneration for running stopcollections.org, a site engaged in “matching lawyers who focus their practice on filing claims under the federal … Continue reading
turnabout is fair play: undisclosed sponsorship of “objective” report could be misleading; overstatement of court holding could be defamatory
Pegasystems, Inc. v. Appian Corp., 2020 WL 2616280, No. 19-11461-PBS (D. Mass. May 22, 2020) Pegasystems sued Appian for allegedly falsely touting a paid for report as independent; now the court deals with Appian’s counterclaims for false advertising under the … Continue reading
another case says Google’s “free speech” statements are puffery
Ugh, Google’s new Blogger interface is terrible–will I be forced to decamp to WordPress? Anyway: Lewis v. Google LLC, — F. Supp. 3d —-, No. 20-cv-00085-SK, 2020 WL 2745253 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2020) Plaintiff, an antifeminist, is sad that … Continue reading
Sam’s Club exposed to disgorgement for potential warranty differences in grey goods it sold
Monahan Prods. LLC v. Sam’s East, Inc., 2020 WL 2561255, No. 18-11561-FDS (D. Mass. May 20, 2020) Plaintiff makes UPPAbaby strollers. Sam’s is a chain of membership-only retail warehouse stores and, despite not being an authorized retailer, it sold actual … Continue reading