-
Recent Posts
- disgorgement can’t be a lottery windfall–even when D was engaged in illegal gambling
- 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?
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
Lanham Act willfulness satisfies Bankruptcy Act willful/malicious standard
In re Better Than Logs, Inc., 631 B.R. 670, No. 20-20160-BPH (D. Mont. Jun. 11, 2021) A rare bankruptcy/false advertising interaction. Creditor Everlog sued BTL for patent infringement and false advertising; BTL ultimately defaulted and Everlog was awared nearly $1 … Continue reading
Court rejects “buy button” false advertising claim because consumer hasn’t yet lost access to “purchased” content
Caudel v. Amazon.com, 2021 WL 4819602, No. 20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2021) Disagreeing with a case against Apple, the court here concludes that Amazon’s “buy” option that doesn’t give consumers ownership does not harm consumers who haven’t (yet) lost … Continue reading
“virologist developed” etc. plausibly implies disease prevention
Corbett v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., 2021 WL 4866124, No. 21cv137-GPC(AGS) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2021) This is a putative class action for violations of consumer fraud statutes in the sale of Sambucol, a dietary supplement that contains a “proprietary extract” … Continue reading
if it’s on the label, courts can presume consumers saw it
Bailey v. Rite Aid Corp., 2021 WL 4469638, No. 4:18-cv-06926 YGR (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2021) Rite Aid moved to reconsider a previous ruling denying a motion to dismiss Bailey’s claim against Rite Aid’s marketing of its over-the-counter acetaminophen gelcaps … Continue reading
challenging defendant’s clinical proof claim is falsity, not lack of substantiation
Woodard v. Labrada, 2021 WL 4499184, No. EDCV 16-189 JGB (SPx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2021) Woodard brought the usual California claims and some others, including NY claims, against Labrada for its weight loss products. Some tidbits: Labrada argues that … Continue reading
Juxtaposition doesn’t necessarily mean one claim bleeds into another
Engram v. GSK Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) Inc., 2021 WL 4502439, No. 19-CV-2886(EK)(PK) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021) GSK sells “2 in 1 Lipcare” Chapstick: it provides moisturization and sun protection … but the former lasts longer than the latter. Engram … Continue reading
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
Mexican origin claims revitalized by survey
Govea v. Gruma Corp., 2021 WL 4518457, No. CV 20-8585-MWF (JCx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2021) Previous discussion. The amended complaint fares better: the tortilla packages at issue plausibly misrepresented Mexican origin. Plaintiffs added allegations that “[u]n pedacito de México” … Continue reading