-
Recent Posts
- 5th Circuit puts its own spin on the server test
- weak infringement case + bad litigation conduct = fee shift for anticompetitive suit over descriptive term
- use of (R) on goods for which mark is not registered might be literally false
- Midjourney can’t force Disney to disclose the prompts it used that didn’t generate material in complaint
- Private label brands show lack of exclusive use for Pedialyte’s trade dress claim, but bad social media use saves TM claim
Recent Comments
Archives
- August 2026
- July 2026
- June 2026
- May 2026
- April 2026
- March 2026
- 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: fda
compounding pharmacy must face drugmaker’s Lanham Act claims based on false 503B compliance statements
Pacira BioSciences, Inc. v. Nephron Sterile Compounding Center, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-05552-CMC, 2026 WL 2267750 (D.S.C. Aug. 6, 2026) Pacira sells an FDA-approved pain management drug called EXPAREL. Nephron allegedly made various false and misleading statements about two of Nephron’s competing … Continue reading
Novo struggles once again to allege deception by sellers of compounded drugs
Novo Nordisk v. Zealthy Inc., 2026 WL 2212889, No. 25-cv-06391 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 31, 2026) Novo Nordisk makes the FDA-approved Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy, while Zealthy markets and facilitates access to drug products, including compounded medications containing semaglutide. Novo alleged … Continue reading
FDCA mostly preempts claims against ineffective decongestant
Yousefzadeh v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., — F.4th —-, 2026 WL 2192415, Nos. 24-3296 (L), 25-119 (CON) (2d Cir. Jul. 30, 2026) Oral phenylephrine (oral PE), used in popular products as Nyquil Severe Cold & Flu, Advil Sinus Congestion … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment
Chobani’s “zero sugar” yogurt with allulose violates FDA regs despite FDA’s nonenforcement; 7th Circuit reverses preemption ruling
Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087 (7th Cir. Jul. 27, 2026) Federal law requires that foods advertised as sugar free contain less than a half gram of sugar. Chobani sold Chobani Zero Sugar Yogurt, but it included four grams per … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment
9th Circuit reverses dismissal where plaintiff plausibly alleges that an ingredient is non-natural flavoring
Trammell v. KLN Enterprises, Inc., No. 24-6097 (9th Cir. May 15, 2026) Perfect summary: The defendant company in this case represented to consumers that its berry snacks product contained no artificial flavors. The plaintiff bought the product believing the representation … Continue reading
high sugar content doesn’t make “Breakfast Essentials” name or health claims misleading
Testori v. Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2026 WL 1282540, No. 1:25-cv-01318-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2026) The court dismissed California claims against Carnation Breakfast Essentials Nutritional Drink. The drink label highlighted its 10g of protein … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment
compounding pharmacies lose a round with Lilly on personalized medicine and GLP-1 comparison claims
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Mochi Health Corp., 2026 WL 1076831, No. 25-cv-03534-JSC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2026) Eli Lilly’s claims were previously dismissed, and Lilly tried again with claims under California’s UCL, Lanham Act false advertising, and civil conspiracy. … Continue reading
compounding pharmacies lose a round with Lilly on personalized medicine and GLP-1 comparison claims
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Mochi Health Corp., 2026 WL 1076831, No. 25-cv-03534-JSC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2026) Eli Lilly’s claims were previously dismissed, and Lilly tried again with claims under California’s UCL, Lanham Act false advertising, and civil conspiracy. … Continue reading
Reading list: consumer protection and the industries who regularly sue their regulators
Nicholas R. Parrillo, Administrative Law as a Choice of Business Strategy: Comparing the Industries Who Have Routinely Sued Their Regulators with the Industries Who Rarely Have George Washington Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 5, pp. 1031-1195 (2025) Abstract: For some … Continue reading
claims about scientific studies might imply FDA approval
BioGaia USA, LLC v. Probiotiv Naturals LLC, 2025 WL 2946910, No. CV 25-3592 PA (MBKx) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025) BioGaia sued Probiotiv – a competitor in the sale of priobiotic dietary supplements for oral health, for false advertising; Probiotiv … Continue reading