-
Recent Posts
- Third Circuit follows Second in protecting medical journals against trade libel claims
- “Safe” not puffery in context of electric dog collars
- Protecting Creativity with a Bottle of Jack on the Floribama Shore (and tiny JDI oral argument observations)
- Another digital “buy” button case survives motion to dismiss
- Supplement guide was plausibly an agent of supplement company; direct and secondary liability available
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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: fees
no disgorgement/fees in false advertising case even after Romag remand
Harbor Breeze Corp. v. Newport Landing Sportfishing, Inc., 2023 WL 2504988, No. SACV 17-01613-CJC (DFMx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2023) Previous district court ruling on irreparable harm; previous 9th Cir. opinion remanding for reconsideration of disgorgement and attorneys’ fees after … Continue reading
grudge litigation over warranties with no harm leads to fee award
Grundman v. Tranik Enters., Inc., 2021 WL 565813, 2d Civil No. B297024 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2021) “This appeal concerns the sale of four luxury watches and a buyer who suffered no cognizable injury. The watches work and there … Continue reading
Rejected compliance offer to AG leads to fee shift after defense victory
State ex rel. Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 313 Or.App. 176, A163980 — P.3d —-, 2021 WL 2946172 (Jul. 14, 2021) The state alleged that LE falsely advertised its 5-hour Energy drinks, misrepresenting (1) the effects of the noncaffeine ingredients … Continue reading
Lack of personal jurisdiction leads to fee award in (c)/false advertising case
International Inst. of Management v. Organization for Econ. Cooperation & Development, No. 2:18-cv-01748-JCM-GWF, 2019 WL 5578485 (D. Nev. Oct. 29, 2019) Not gonna lie, I’m here for the defendants, the OECD and Joseph Stiglitz. IIM, a small Nevada think tank, … Continue reading
Literal falsity about independence of tests/test results supports $18 million in disgorgement (incl. interest)
Dyson, Inc. v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, 2019 WL 1454509, No. 14 C 9442 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2019) Dyson sued SharkNinja in 2014 for false advertising. SharkNinja won summary judgment except for Dyson’s literal falsity claim for the period from … Continue reading
Court sanctions plaintiffs for inaccurate images of product labels in complaint
Hunt v. Sunny Delight Beverages Co., No. 18-cv-00557-JLS-DFM, 2018 WL 6786265 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018) Some Sunny Delight beverages bear names derived from fruits, such as “Orange Strawberry,” “Orange Pineapple,” “Strawberry Guava,” and “Watermelon,” while others are less fruity, … Continue reading
Bringing a false advertising claim with unclean hands leads to fee award
Certified Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Avicenna Nutraceutical, LLC, 2018 WL 5840042, No. 16-cv-02810-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2018) The court awarded roughly $170,000 in fees in this Lanham Act false advertising case because the plaintiff engaged in the same conduct (falsely … Continue reading
Open legal question doesn’t preclude fees award where manner of litigating is exceptional
Tobinick v. Novella, 884 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2018) The court of appeals held that the Octane Fitness standard for “exceptional cases” applied to Lanham Act cases, and that the District Court here didn’t abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s … Continue reading
It stinks to high heaven: knockoff fragrances infringing, diluting, falsely advertised, but not counterfeit
Coty Inc. v. Excell Brands, LLC, No. 15-CV-7029, 2017 WL 4155402 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2017) Coty and a number of other producers and distributors of well-known fragrances sued Excell, which produced cheap “versions” of Coty’s fragrances, with similar names and … Continue reading
It stinks to high heaven: knockoff fragrances infringing, diluting, falsely advertised, but not counterfeit
Coty Inc. v. Excell Brands, LLC, No. 15-CV-7029, 2017 WL 4155402 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2017) Coty and a number of other producers and distributors of well-known fragrances sued Excell, which produced cheap “versions” of Coty’s fragrances, with similar names and … Continue reading