-
Recent Posts
- False endorsement claim can proceed against gov’t issued license plates and gov’t facility named for Roberto Clemente
- Non-TM owner can use 43(a) to challenge confusing use
- 11th Circuit affirms defense TM verdict; evidence of confusion is not evidence of harm for disgorgement
- CFP: Yale/Harvard/Stanford Junior Faculty Forum, May 21-22
- court rejects TM owner’s attempt to require full chain of custody for first sale defense, but where is the burden of proof?
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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
Tag Archives: consumer protection
P&G’s brand extension ZzzQuil must face lawsuit alleging falsity of its “Non-Habit Forming” claim
Sneed v. Procter & Gamble Company, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2025 WL 1017933, No. 23-cv-05443-JST (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2025) This case is about a product I recently noticed, “Nighttime Sleep Aid” products containing diphenhydramine hydrochloride as ZzzQuil. Sneed alleged that … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment
ambiguity in consumer class actions v. the Lanham Act: convergence or divergence?
Slaten v. Christian Dior Perfumes, LLC, 2025 WL 1840026, No. 23-cv-00409-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2025) The concept of ambiguity is now on a path to become as entrenched in consumer protection cases as in Lanham Act cases. My thinking … Continue reading
Southern discomfort: class certified over malt beverage dressed like Southern Comfort whiskey
Andrews v. Sazerac Co., 2025 WL 1808797, No. 23-cv-1060 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 1, 2025) Plaintiffs alleged that Sazerac deceived consumers by selling a malt beverage that looks like Southern Comfort whiskey but in fact contains only “whiskey flavor.” The court … Continue reading
claim of failure to warn of kratom’s addiction potential not preempted; a “disease claim” involves helping, not causing, disease
J.J. v. Ashlynn Marketing Gp., 2025 WL 1811854, No. 24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2025) Plaintiffs sued on behalf of putative nationwide, California, and NY classes, alleging that Ashlynn failed to warn consumers of the potentially addictive nature of its … Continue reading
plaintiffs don’t have to use full FDA methods for testing nutrients to avoid FDA preemption
Scheibe v. ProSupps USA, LLC, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1730272, No. 23-3300 (9th Cir. Jun. 24, 2025) The FDA specifies testing methods for determining the amount of carbohydrates and calories in a food, as well as a sampling process … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment
Visa logo doesn’t represent that cards will be protected against fraud
Schuman v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2025 WL 1731795, No. 1:24-cv-666-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 23, 2025) This one is interesting both as a fraud warning and as a pronouncement on what reasonable consumers think about the possibility of fraud. … Continue reading
“natural” plausibly meant “all natural”
Cobovic v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., No. 24-CV-7730 (ARR) (JAM), 2025 WL 1726261 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 20, 2025) Cobovic alleged that Mars’s use of the word “natural” on the label of its pet food products violates New York consumer protection law … Continue reading
it’s plausibly deceptive to sell “Kids” gummies identical to adult gummies
Barrales v. New Chapter, Inc., 2025 WL 1584424, No. 2:25-cv-01171-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2025) Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s Fiber Gummies were deceptively labeled (1) because the claim “with 4g of probiotic fiber” was false because it implies that each … Continue reading
“wholesome” not puffery in context, court finds
Levit v. Nature’s Bakery, LLC, 767 F.Supp.3d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2025) Nature’s Bakery Products fig bars claim “Wholesome Baked In,” “equal parts wholesome and delicious,” “what we bake in is as important as what we leave out,” “simple snacks made … Continue reading
P&G’s primary jurisdiction argument over tampon labels goes down like a lead balloon
Barton v. Procter & Gamble Co., 766 F.Supp.3d 1045 (S.D. Cal. 2025) Plaintiffs alleged that P&G’s Tampax Pearl and Radiant tampons had dangerous levels of lead; the court allowed some of the usual California claims to proceed, including for injunctive … Continue reading