-
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
Advertising question of the day: Honeycrisp or honey crisp?
Assuming this alcoholic beverage is not made from honeycrisp apples–but that it does contain honey–would the product name be false or misleading? H/T Adam Levitin. Note that the manufacturer doesn’t disclose the apple variety one way or another, as far … Continue reading
Plaintiff can’t win false advertising claim because there’s evidence on both sides
Korolshteyn v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 15-cv-709, 2017 WL 3622226 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2017) Ugh. Costco’s TruNature Gingko labels represent that the product “supports alertness & memory,” that “Gingko biloba can help with mental clarity and memory,” and that … Continue reading
4th Cir. holds certification nonprofit’s self-promotion to retailers is commercial speech
Handsome Brook Farm, LLC v. Humane Farm Animal Care, Inc., No. 16-1813, 2017 WL 3601506, — F. Appx. – (4th Cir. Aug. 22, 2017) The court of appeals affirmed the district court ruling that a nonprofit egg certifier’s disparagement of … Continue reading
Bad dilution claims are so common that they aren’t “exceptional” for fee-shifting, court rules
Parks, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2017 WL 3534993, No. 15-cv-00946 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2017) Tyson sought attorneys’ fees in this Lanham Act case after its summary judgment victory was affirmed by the Third Circuit. The court found that … Continue reading
reading list: Willis on remedies for consumer fraud
Lauren E. Willis, Performance-Based Remedies: Ordering Firms to Eradicate Their Own Fraud, 80 Law and Contemporary Problems 7-41 (2017) Abstract In resolving cases of unfair, abusive, and deceptive acts and practices, consumer protection enforcement agencies often prospectively dictate—in great detail—the … Continue reading
taking customer list as conversion; false claims of official investigation as false advertising
Yeti Enters. Inc. v. Tang, 2017 WL 3478484, No. 13-cv-01203 (D. Or. Aug. 14, 2017) This is a tangled story that illustrates how false advertising claims can arise from failed business agreements. Plaintiff NPK sued Nicholas Jackson and Jessica Lilga … Continue reading
When state consumer protection is narrower than federal
Natreon, Inc. v. Ixoreal Biomed, Inc., 2017 WL 3131975, No. 16-4735 (D.N.J. Jul. 21, 2017) Natron sued defendant/counterclaimant/third-party plaintiff SKP and defendant Ixoreal, alleging false advertising and unfair competition in connection with an extract used in holistic and alternative medicines: … Continue reading
SDNY declines to extend ONY to press releases about studies
Mimedx Group, Inc. v. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 3645, 2017 WL 3129799 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 21, 2017) The parties compete in the wound care biologics market for tissue-graft products. Mimedx makes “EpiFix,” “a tissue graft processed from [a dehydrated] … Continue reading
Deceive, inveigle, obfuscate–false discount claims still don’t cause cognizable injury
Mulder v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2017 WL 3167620, No. 16-1238 (1st Cir. Jul. 26, 2017) Mulder bought several items that listed both purchase prices and significantly higher “comparison prices.” Mulder alleged that these comparison prices were … Continue reading
Deceive, inveigle, obfuscate–false discount claims still don’t cause cognizable injury
Mulder v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2017 WL 3167620, No. 16-1238 (1st Cir. Jul. 26, 2017) Mulder bought several items that listed both purchase prices and significantly higher “comparison prices.” Mulder alleged that these comparison prices were … Continue reading