-
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
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
false advertising claim fails, in part because of stringent antitrust rules
In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2785, No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan. Dec. 17, 2020) A lot of stuff here; I will ignore the non-false advertising related aspects of this mostly antitrust case. … Continue reading
No organizational standing from mere conflict with consumer protection mission
In Defense of Animals v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 2021 WL 4243391, No. 20-cv-05293-RS (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2021) Let’s play the fun game “which of these statements about standing should make IP people nervous?” Previously, Friends of the Earth and … Continue reading
consumer’s bid to enjoin Redbubble’s sale of “counterfeits” fails
Vinluan-Jularbal v. Redbubble, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00573-JAM-JDP, 2021 WL 4286539 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2021) Plaintiff thinks Redbubble sells a lot of “counterfeits” and wants that enjoined under the UCL and CLRA. Despite ruling in her favor on a lot of … Continue reading
Dastar prevents misrepresentation of source of IP from being material
Restellini v. Wildenstein Plattner Inst., Inc., 2021 WL 4340824, No. 20 Civ. 4388 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2021) This is an interesting application of Dastar to preclude certain theories of falsity–I’m not sure materiality is really the right characterization, but … Continue reading
“Krab mix” plausibly misleads as to crab content
Kang v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 844 Fed.Appx. 969, 2021 WL 463443, No. 20-55138 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2021) Plaintiff plausibly alleged that reasonable consumers “are likely to be deceived” by defendant’s use of the term “krab mix” on … Continue reading
Survey flaws prevent it from saving vanilla false advertising claim
Clark v. Westbrae Natural, Inc., 2021 WL 1580827, No. 20-cv-03221-JSC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2021) I find the vanilla class actions fascinating because they are starting to reject surveys, pushing this area of the law towards a normative vision of … Continue reading
No organizational standing where advocacy campaigns didn’t change
Friends of the Earth v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 992 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2021) Although the animal/farm advocacy organization plaintiffs won some early skirmishes, they faltered on lack of organizational standing against a poultry producer to bring consumer protection claims. … Continue reading
pandemic refund claim plausibly alleged
Rothman v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., 2021 WL 1627490, No. 2:20-cv-09760-CAS-MRWx (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2021) Another pandemic refund case. This one found a misrepresentation adequately pled with respect to the refund provision of plaintiff’s membership contract with the defendant, a … Continue reading