-
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
Tag Archives: false advertising
hashtags are plausibly infringing; sales claims plausibly false based on P’s own history of sales
Automated Pet Care Prods., LLC v. Purlife Brands, Inc., 2023 WL 3046592, No. 22-cv-04261-VC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2023) In two opinions on the same day, the court dealt with various IP/false advertising claims brought by one litter box seller … Continue reading
fake meat law reinstated on appeal: intentionally misleading commercial speech gets no protection
Turtle Island Foods, S.P.C. v. Strain, No. 22-30236 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) Reversing the district court, the court of appeals found that Tofurkey’s facial challenge to a Louisiana anti-fake meat law failed because the law plausibly could be read … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged commercial speech, false advertising, first amendment
Leave a comment
paying a referral fee is a consumer injury, not a competitor injury, for Lanham Act standing purposes
Lewis v. Acuity Real Estate Services, LLC, 63 F.4th 1114 (6th Cir. 2023) Acuity operates a website that connects people looking to buy or sell homes with a local real-estate agent in their area. Acuity offers its services for free … Continue reading
Press release touting preliminary injunction can found false advertising counterclaims
Zest Anchors, LLC v. Geryon Ventures, LLC, 2023 WL 2903668, No. 22-CV-230 TWR (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2023) Zest sued defendants for trademark/trade dress infringement, alleging that defendants’ DESSLoc suite of denture attachment products infringed the trademarks and trade … Continue reading
Monster wins permanent injunction against VPX in false advertising case
Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2023 WL 2918724, No. EDCV 18-1882 JGB (SHKx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on false advertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in … Continue reading
timeshare exit firm wins fee award where plaintiff failed to show key elements of claim
Club Exploria, LLC v. Aaronson, Austin, P.A., 2022 WL 19479011, No 6:18-cv-576-JA-DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2022) (R&R) “[F]ew parties are as adversarial—or as litigious—as timeshare developers and timeshare exit companies.” Plaintiffs, timeshare developers, sued defendants, a timeshare exit law … Continue reading
Agency liability theory satisfies “commercial advertising or promotion” requirement of promoting one’s own products/services
Ariix, LLC v. Nutrisearch Corp., 2023 WL 2933306, No. 17CV320-LAB (DDL) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2023) Previous court of appeals ruling discussed here. Ariix alleged that NutriSearch, the publisher of the NutriSearch Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements, and the Guide’s … Continue reading
even if retailer is responsible for price premium, misleading label is actionable
DiGiacinto v. RB Health (US) LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 2918745, No. 22-cv-04690-DMR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2023) Plaintiff alleged that Children’s Delsym Cough Relief was misleadingly marketed as different from, and more expensive than, the adult product, when … Continue reading
Even in default, it’s not TM infringement to resell legitimate goods (but maybe false advertising to call them new)
Quincy Bioscience, LLC v. BRYK Enters., LLC, 2023 WL 2933464, No. 22-cv-658-jdp (W.D. Wis. Apr. 13, 2023) I don’t usually blog default cases because there’s usually little legal analysis; this case is an exception around the fraught area of first … Continue reading
lidocaine suits find pain point as judge dismisses claim
Prescott v. Rite Aid Corp., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 2753899, No. 22-cv-05798-VC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2023) Breaking with several previous cases, this court holds that Rite Aid’s “Maximum Strength Pain Relief Lidocaine Patches” with 4% aren’t misleading even … Continue reading