-
Recent Posts
- context matters: “mineral-based” sunscreen with chemical-based active ingredients is plausibly deceptive
- No contributory liability for athlete union’s endorsement of supplement
- selling w/in another distributor’s exclusive territory isn’t plausibly false advertising of authorization
- IPSC, Trademark
- The McCarthy Series: U.S.P.T.O. v. Booking.com: What the Recent SCOTUS Ruling Means for Trademark Law
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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: false advertising
context matters: “mineral-based” sunscreen with chemical-based active ingredients is plausibly deceptive
Prescott v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, 2020 WL 4430958, No. 20-cv-00102-NC (N.D. Cal. Jun. 31, 2020) (magistrate) Plaintiffs alleged that defendants deceived consumers by labeling their sunscreens as “mineral-based” when the sunscreens contain active chemical ingredients. As the court explains, … 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
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
misrepresentation of origin was not material and thus not false advertising
Boshnack v. Widow Jane Distilleries LLC, 2020 WL 3000358, No. 19cv8812 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 4, 2020) In trademark cases, courts don’t require any materiality showing. That matters. Materiality here defeats the only plausibly pled falsities about Widow Jane’s whiskey, which … Continue reading
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
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
