-
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
The probiotic worm turns: previous PI loser wins $15 million in Lanham Act case
De Simone v. VSL Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. TDC-15-1356, 2019 WL 2569574 (D. Md. Jun. 20, 2019) Previous discussions. The parties compete in offering a probiotic product; De Simone used to license his formulation to VSL, then went out on his … Continue reading
variety in superiority claims can add up to disparagement
Deerpoint Group, Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC, 2019 WL 2513756, No. 18-CV-0536 AWI BAM (E.D. Cal. Jun. 18, 2019) Deerpoint sued Agrigenix for violating the Lanham Act and California’s UCL via false advertising, violating California and federal trade secret law, and … Continue reading
photo of competitor’s product not false where it’s indistinguishable; also some design patent functionality
Tactical Medical Solutions, Inc. v. KARL 2019 WL 2435859, No. 14 C 06035 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 11, 2019) TMS sued Karl and his sole proprietorship, EMI, for infringement of TMS’s design and utility patents by selling a “knockoff” version of … Continue reading
Amicus brief in video game/trademark case
With the help of Phil Malone and Alyssa Picard at Stanford’s IP clinic, I and others submitted a law professors’ brief in this case involving Activision’s use of Humvees in depictions of military operations in the Call of Duty games. AMG … Continue reading
Mock magazine cover doesn’t infringe, dilute, advertise falsely even if targeted at competitor
Ebony Media Operations, LLC v. Univision Communications Inc., No. 18-cv-11434-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 3, 2019) Judge Hellerstein called the question presented “interesting,” but an even better adjective would be “easy”: “whether, in the case of a famous magazine trademark, a competitor-magazine … Continue reading
Mock magazine cover doesn’t infringe, dilute, advertise falsely even if targeted at competitor
Ebony Media Operations, LLC v. Univision Communications Inc., No. 18-cv-11434-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 3, 2019) Judge Hellerstein called the question presented “interesting,” but an even better adjective would be “easy”: “whether, in the case of a famous magazine trademark, a competitor-magazine … Continue reading
The Consumer “Right To Know” Versus the First Amendment
Panel II at the Abrams Institute’s conference Moderator: Jonah Knobler, Partner, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler: recent attempts to do things like require disclosure of child labor in manufacturing process, and related consumer protection cases arguing that failure to disclose … Continue reading
major beer battle turns on Mead (Johnson)
Long post, lots of stuff to cover in this opinion. MillerCoors, LLC v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., No. 19-cv-218-wmc (W.D. Wisc. May 24, 2019) There’s an apocryphal ad story about a cannery stuck with unmarketable pale salmon that turned its disadvantage around … Continue reading
Placebo effect is ok by CLRA: Homeopathic remedy wins jury trial on false advertising, still needs to defend against “unfairness”
Allen v. Hylands, Inc., — Fed.Appx. —-, 2019 WL 2142843, No. 17-56184 (9th Cir. May 15, 2019) Allen, on behalf of a class, appealled following a jury’s verdict in favor of Hyland’s. “The gravamen of [Allen’s] claims is that Hyland’s … Continue reading
AARP endorsement of insurer doesn’t inherently represent that AARP chose disinterestedly
Levay v. AARP, Inc., 2019 WL 2108124, No. 17-09041 DDP (PLAx) (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2019) Plaintiffs are AARP members who allege to have “joined and paid to be AARP members” after being allegedly “induced … through unlawful, misleading and/or … Continue reading