-
Recent Posts
- Third Circuit follows Second in protecting medical journals against trade libel claims
- “Safe” not puffery in context of electric dog collars
- Protecting Creativity with a Bottle of Jack on the Floribama Shore (and tiny JDI oral argument observations)
- Another digital “buy” button case survives motion to dismiss
- Supplement guide was plausibly an agent of supplement company; direct and secondary liability available
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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: disparagement
disparagement campaign in niche jewelry market could violate Lanham Act
Roberto Coin, Inc. v. Goldstein, No. 18-CV-4045(EK)(ST), 2021 WL 4502470 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021) Defendants Goldstein and his company Kings Stone supplied plaintiff RCI with a gemstone they called “black jade.” “After RCI stopped sourcing black jade from Kings Stone … Continue reading
accusing a home inspectors’ group of link with NAMBLA isn’t believable enough for defamation
Examination Board of Professional Home Inspectors v. International Association of Certified Home Inspectors, 2021 WL 492482, No 18-cv-01559-RBJ (D. Colo. Feb. 10, 2021) Although an individual’s comments linking his rival to NAMBLA and Jeffrey Dahmer were non-actionable non-facts, statements arguably … Continue reading
patent misrepresentations to prospective dealer could be false advertising under Dastar/Lexmark
Three very similar cases involving the same plaintiff. Roof Maxx Technol., LLC v. Holsinger, 2021 WL 3617153, No. 2:20-cv-03154 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2021) Roof Maxx distributes “a soy-based liquid product that is sprayed on asphalt shingle roofs to extend … Continue reading
robust TX anti-SLAPP law protects critic despite arguments that she was partly competing
ADB Interest, LLC v. Wallace, 606 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Ct. App. 2020) This is an anti-SLAPP case about statements by a disgruntled customer/alleged competitor. Black, the managing member of ADB, invented the FasciaBlaster, which is marketed by ADB. The user … Continue reading
“all IP” puts C&D recipient on notice of TM (R), and a bit on the meaning of blue check marks
Commodores Entertainment Corp. v. McClary, Nos. 19-10791, 19-12819, — Fed.Appx. —-, 2020 WL 4218236 (11th Cir. Jul. 23, 2020) As quickly summarized by the court: The prolonged dispute concerns the ownership of the mark “The Commodores,” the name of a … Continue reading
anti-tanning public service campaign targeted all tanning salons, thus couldn’t disparage them
JB & Associates, Inc. v. Nebraska Cancer Coalition, — N.W.2d —-, 303 Neb. 855, No. S-18-719, 2019 WL 3756342 (Aug. 9, 2019) Appellants, several tanning salons, appealed their dismissal of defamation and product disparagement claims under Nebraska’s Uniform Deceptive Trade … Continue reading
False advertising & TM fail as workarounds to 230 for software blocking
PC Drivers Headquarters, LP v. Malwarebytes Inc., 2019 WL 1061739, No. 18-cv-05409-EJD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019) PC Drivers alleged that Malwarebytes’ malware detection software wrongfully categorized PC Drivers’ “technical support” software as malware or a “Potentially Unwanted Program” (PUP), … Continue reading
Anonymous defamatory posts are “advertising or promotion” under Lanham Act
Romeo & Juliette Laser Hair Removal, Inc. v. Assara I LLC, 2016 WL 815205, No. 8-cv-0442 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016) R&J sued Assara and a number of related people eight years ago. The parties compete to offer laser hair … Continue reading
Failure to show harm dooms many claims based on negative press release
Synygy, Inc. v. ZS Associates, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2015 WL 5818510, No. 10-4274 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2015) Wow, this one’s been going on for a while. Note that evidence of damages is key to the traditional, non-commercial-speech … Continue reading