-
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: first amendment
En banc court again strikes down sugar-sweetened beverages warning, with divided and divisive reasoning
American Beverage Ass’ v. City & County of San Francisco, No. 16-16072 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2019) After the panel opinion striking down SF’s sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) disclosure was reheard by the en banc court in light of National Institute … Continue reading
Honey Badger don’t care for different reasons: court fixes artistic relevance but still doubles down on transformativeness
Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc., No. 16-56715 (9th Cir. Nov. 20, 2018) Previous opinion discussed here; amicus brief that may have influenced the court to withdraw that opinion and put out a superseding one here. The court found a triable … Continue reading
Cents and sensibility: NY Ct of Appeals weighs in on credit surcharge law
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, — N.E.3d —-, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 07037, 2018 WL 5258853 (Oct. 23, 2018) GBL section 518 states: “No seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use … Continue reading
it’s not defamatory to conflate 2 legally distinct entities when unity is what they wanted consumers to perceive
RainSoft v. MacFarland, No. 15-432 WES, 2018 WL 4696737 (D.R.I. Sept. 30, 2018) MacFarland runs lazymanandmoney.com, where he blogs about companies who provide consumer products and services. He and his wife “sat through an in-home demonstration of RainSoft’s water-treatment products.” … Continue reading
Sony’s claim that Michael Jackson performed songs on album was just its opinion
Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment, — Cal.Rptr.3d —- , 2018 WL 4090622, No. B280526 (Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018) [This case says a bunch of stuff that’s way too broad for the facts; people who are concerned about things like … Continue reading
the perils of default judgments against speech: showing up late can prove onerous
Lokosky v. Gass, No. 1 CA-SA 18-0101, 2018 WL 3150499 (Az. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2018) Respondents (not Gass, who’s the judge, named for procedural reasons) sued Lokosky for false advertising and related claims seeking to compel Lokosky to “remove … Continue reading
Right of Publicity, Litigating the Claims
Litigating the Claims Rick Kurnit: told the story of litigating the White case, in which the author of the panel opinion didn’t know what a letter-turner was. Had to go to trial with a jury, all of which regularly watched … Continue reading
Right of Publicity panel, Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression
From Yale Law School’s Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression Commercial Speech and the First Amendment: Does the Right of Publicity Transcend Commercial Speech? Jennifer Rothman: Right of Publicity? Right of Privacy? Rothman gave a keynote summarizing highlights of her … Continue reading