-
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
Going to the mattresses without initial interest confusion
Select Comfort Corporation v. Baxter, No. 12-2899, 2016 WL 158516 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2016) A lot of stuff going on here. The parties compete in the market for adjustable air beds and related products. Select Comfort has a … Continue reading
Is it safe? Uber’s media statements about safety are commercial speech
Greater Houston Transportation Company v. Uber Technologies, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, No. 4.14-0941, 2015 WL 9660022 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2015) [Yes, I know, but I couldn’t find a relevant Taxi Driver quote.] Previous opinion discussed earlier in … Continue reading
Failure to show harm dooms many claims based on negative press release
Synygy, Inc. v. ZS Associates, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2015 WL 5818510, No. 10-4274 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2015) Wow, this one’s been going on for a while. Note that evidence of damages is key to the traditional, non-commercial-speech … Continue reading
Bait and switch on different versions of the same brand isn’t TM infringement
Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Christenson, No. 12-1731 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2015) Adobe loses this case because of pleading and discovery choices, allowing the 9th Circuit to avoid harder first sale questions. Christenson sold Adobe software, which he purchased … Continue reading
Puerto Rico registration can’t constitutionally extend elsewhere
Puerto Rico Coffee Roasters LLC v. Pan American Grain Manufacturing Co., Inc., 2015 WL 8551102, No. 3:15–CV–02099 (D.P.R. Dec. 11, 2015) P.R. Coffee Roasters, which sells “Café Rico” coffee in P.R., sued Pan American for trademark infringement, false advertising, … Continue reading
California false advertising requires “advertising,” but unfair competition doesn’t
Golden v. Sound Inpatient Physicians Medical Group, Inc., No. 14-cv-00497, 2015 WL 8539034 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2015) Golden, a medical doctor, was a VP of medical affairs/chief quality officer at Dameron Hospital from 2008-2012. Golden was also the … Continue reading
California claims against false use of “organic” not preempted
Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., 2015 WL 7770635, No. S216305 (Cal. S.Ct. Dec. 3, 2015) Labels matter to consumers, and misrepresentations on labels hurt consumers in their search for information and also disadvantage honest producers attempting to differentiate … Continue reading
is “this video has been removed for violating the ToS” commercial advertising?
Darnaa, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2015 WL 7753406, No. 15-cv-03221 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) Darnaa posted a music video, Cowgirl, to YouTube. At one point, YouTube removed the video from its original location, later reposting it at a … Continue reading
Rebecca Tushnet 