-
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
seeds of disaster: Syngenta must continue to fight claims based on genetically altered seeds
In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig., Nos. MDL 2591, 14–MD–2591–JWL, 2015 WL 5607600 (D. Kan. Sept. 11, 2015) Corn producers, non-producer corn sellers, and milo producers sued Syngenta because of its production of genetically altered corn, which … Continue reading
omission from “comprehensive” database wasn’t actionable misrepresentation
Alexso, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., 2015 WL 5554005, No. CV 15-01893 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) Alexso makes kits that pharmacies use to compound prescription drugs. FDB publishes databases that provide information about drug products to the healthcare … Continue reading
Google can’t avoid class action just because damages are variable
Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 12-16752 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2015) From 2004-08, many advertisers used Google’s AdWords to bid for Google to put their ads on websites. Pulaski sued under the California UCL and FAL, … Continue reading
A pox on both their steel buildings: unusual copyright and false advertising rulings
General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley, — F. Supp. 3d –, No. 13-cv-00769, 2015 WL 5353080 (D. Colo. Sept. 15, 2015) A bizarre copyright fair use ruling mars this iteration of this long-running, bitter dispute between the parties, … Continue reading
Another internal website search engine case survives motion to dismiss
Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2015 WL 5173060, No. 2:14–CV–2234 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) (magistrate judge) Stiles allegedly patented the “Stiles Razor,” the only personal styling razor with a 1/8” blade and ergonomic handle allowing for safe and … Continue reading
Upset tummies at P&G: Sixth Circuit affirms class certification on “snake oil” theory
Rikos v. Procter & Gamble Co., — F.3d —-, 2015 WL 4978712 (6th Cir. June 16, 2015) A court of appeals affirms the certification of a consumer protection class action, a rarity worth noting. Plaintiffs bought Align, P&G’s … Continue reading
Court finds misleading omissions can deprive ISP of 230 protection
General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley, No. 14-cv-01932, 2015 WL 4911585 (D. Colo. Aug. 18, 2015) General Steel sued Chumley and Atlantic Building, of which he was CEO, for false advertising, libel, and intentional interference with prospective business … Continue reading
Copyright infringement is channeled into (c), not state or Lanham Act claims
Quadratec, Inc. v. Turn 5, Inc., 2015 WL 4876314, No. 13–6384 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2015) The parties compete to sell removable soft tops and other aftermarket parts and accessories for Jeep vehicles. Quadratec alleged that it invests substantial … Continue reading
overclaiming study results to apply to unstudied product can be false/misleading
In re Riddell Concussion Reduction Litig., No. 13–7585, 2015 WL 4640425 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2015) The plaintiffs sued Riddell for marketing football helmets based on allegedly false or misleading claims that the helmets were equipped with unique concussion reduction … Continue reading
IPSC: Copyright again
Copyright History Shyam Balganesh University of Pennsylvania Law School The Questionable Origins of the Copyright Infringement Analysis Jerome Frank’s infamous/canonical © infringement test from Arnstein v. Porter, influential across the country. Step 1: actual copying, dissection allowed, expert testimony … Continue reading