-
Recent Posts
- CFP: emerging First Amendment scholars
- “ambiguity” is taking hold in consumer protection class actions, but it’s not the Lanham Act concept
- conducting dueling internet searches converts attys into fact witnesses in TM case
- Santa Clara IP Conference: Where Do We Go From Here?
- Santa Clara IP conference: How It’s Going: What Went Wrong?
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
Tag Archives: false advertising
Another API (c) case with false advertising and contract claims too
Trackman, Inc. v. GSP Golf AB, 2024 WL 4276497, No. 23 Civ. 598 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2024) Trackman makes the golf simulator game Perfect Golf, which offers users the ability to virtually play some of the most famous golf … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged contracts, copyright, dastar, false advertising, preemption, trademark
Leave a comment
Claims that “non-drowsy” is false aren’t preempted by FDCA
Calchi v. Topco Assoc., LLC, 2024 WL 4346420, No. 22-cv-747 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2024) Is there any circuit style more distinctive than the Seventh Circuit style? (Cf.) This is one of a number of lawsuits against purportedly non-drowsy cold … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment
Amazon potentially on the hook for marketing mislabeled supplements
Li v. Amazon.com Servs., 2024 WL 4336432, No. 2:23-cv-01975-JHC (W.D. Wash. Sept. 27, 2024) Plaintiffs alleged that Amazon promoted, sold, and delivered dietary supplements that lacked mandatory FDA disclaimers in violation of California law. Plaintiffs allegedly saw the representations on … Continue reading
CAFA can’t prevent remand to state court where consumer protection claims are all equitable
Haver v. General Mills, Inc., 2024 WL 4492052, No.: 3:24-cv-01269-CAB-MMP (S.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2024) Interesting remand to state court. Haver sued under the UCL and FAL, alleging that GM deceptively marketed “Fruit Snacks” to contain “Real Fruit Juice,” when … Continue reading
even after default, court may constrain recovery in competitive market
KHN Solutions LLC v. Shenzhen City Xuewu Feiping Trading Co., No. C 20-07414 WHA, 2024 WL 4351861 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2024) I don’t usually blog default judgments, but this one was interesting. It granted interim relief against Amazon.com, impounding … Continue reading
false “patented/proprietary/exclusive” claims can be actionable despite Dastar
Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 2022-2160 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024) Crocs sued competitors for patent infringement; defendant Dawgs counterclaimed for false advertising about the characteristics of the primary material Crocs uses to make its footwear products, a material … Continue reading
republishing scientific study to prospective customers isn’t protected opinion
Advance Dx, Inc. v. YourBio Health, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2024 WL 4393314, No. 24-10595-WGY (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2024) Advance sued YourBio, which competes in the market for at-home medical device testing patients’ level of anti-Mullerian hormone, for false … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged defamation, disparagement, false advertising, tortious interference
Leave a comment
9th Circuit refuses to kick out claim over benzene in sunscreen on standing
Bowen v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2024 WL 4352496, No. 23-55116 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2024) Bowen sued Energizer for false advertising, alleging that its Banana Boat sunscreen was adulterated with dangerous levels of benzene, a carcinogen that … Continue reading
“natural” class certified based in part on internal acknowledgement of materiality and potential falsity
Drake v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, 2024 WL 4204921, No. 22-cv-1085-MMA (JLB) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2024) Plaintiffs alleged that Bayer falsely advertised One A Day Natural Fruit Bites Multivitamin products as “natural” even though they “contain non-natural, synthetic ingredients.” They … Continue reading
Copyright preemption in trade dress claims?
Scotts Company LLC v. SBM Life Science Corp., — F.Supp.3d —-, No. 2:23-cv-1541, 2024 WL 4217446 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 18, 2024) Scotts makes consumer lawn, garden, pesticide, and insecticide products, including under the “ORTHO” brand. Scotts alleged rights in its … Continue reading