-
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
Pairing map with EPA mileage claims can misrepresent real-world mileage
Kim v. General Motors, LLC, 99 F. Supp. 3d 1096 (C.D. Cal. 2015) Kim sued GM for misleadingly advertising EPA estimated mileage figures and numbers derived from these figures as “actual, expected mileage under normal, real world driving conditions.” … Continue reading
If only the last Trump would sound: Trump University case continues
Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, 2015 WL 7302728, No. 10cv0940 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2015) Charlatan and budding fascist Donald Trump failed to get rid of many consumer protection claims against him and his “Trump University” (now renamed). Can’t … Continue reading
Statement isn’t literally false when plaintiff can’t definitely be identified from it
Service Jewelry Repair, Inc. v. Cumulus Broadcasting, LLC, 2015 WL 7112334, No. 14–cv–1901 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2015) Service Jewelry provides jewelry sales and services; from 2010-2014, it promoted its products on a local radio station, WWTN-FM, by buying … Continue reading
Why we need an anti-SLAPP law: skeptic’s articles still not commercial speech
Tobinick v. Novella, No. 9:14–CV–80781, 2015 WL 6777458 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2015) This case is a good example of the need for a federal anti-SLAPP statute. Although many claims have been dismissed, the court here finally resolved Lanham … Continue reading
Instant lack of gratification: coffee class certified
Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc., 2015 WL 6689359, No. 11-CV-565 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2015) After the district court’s initial dismissal of this class action case was resoundingly reversed, the case returned and was here certified by a new … Continue reading
estimated retail value claim isn’t puffery
Kabbash v. Jewelry Channel, Inc. USA, 2015 WL 6690236 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2015) Holding of most general interest: “Estimated retail value” statements and statements of discount or savings amounts at check-out where the discount calculations were based on … Continue reading
When does “no contract” mean “mandatory arbitration contract”?
Barraza v. Cricket Wireless LLC, 2015 WL 6689396, No. C 15-02471 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015) Cricket advertised a “No Contract” wireless phone plan with an arbitration clause in its purported contract terms. As Omri Ben-Shahar pointed out, advertising … Continue reading
Class claims down the toilet? Court stays lawsuit for FTC action
Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2015 WL 5781541, No. 14–CV–4090 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2015) The district court stayed six related consumer class actions against “flushable” wipes on the ground that the FTC could probably protect … Continue reading
competition no longer required for Lanham Act “commercial advertising or promotion”
Healthnow New York Inc. v. Catholic Health System, Inc., 2015 WL 5673123, No. 14–CV–986S (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2015) Healthnow, aka Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Western New York (BCBS), sued Catholic Health for violations of the Lanham Act … Continue reading
Silicon Valley darling uses negative option offers, attracts criticism
This Buzzfeed story suggests that JustFab, which received a billion-dollar valuation, has the same problems as previous FTC-targeted companies started by its founders. from Blogger http://ift.tt/1FBJ7E6