Tag Archives: preemption

Right of Publicity Workshop Part 3

Posted on October 17, 2015 by rtushnet

Relationship to Copyright law/Relationship to Trademark law    Dryer v. NFL will be argued to the 8th Cir. challenged by retired NFL players to continued airing of programs recounting their exploits in actual games.  Survived a motion to dismiss.  After … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Right of publicity workshop at Yale

Posted on October 17, 2015 by rtushnet

Right of Publicity Workshop Yale Law School Information Society Project Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression   Chatham House rules apparently allow me to disclose my own participation, but not that of others, so I’ll just take some notes on … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dastar bars website trade dress claim that just repeats copyright allegations

Posted on October 16, 2015 by rtushnet

Touchpoint Communications, LLC v. DentalFone, LLC, No. 15-cv-05240 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2015)   Touchpoint and DentalFone are Internet dental marketing companies.  Touchpoint filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a judgment of noninfringement of DentalFone’s copyrights and trade dress/lack of … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Don’t send misappropriation to do copyright’s job

Posted on October 1, 2015 by rtushnet

Alaskasland.com, LLC v. Cross, No. S­15270 (Alaska Sept. 25, 2015)   A realtor group listed property adjacent to a neighboring subdivision, Susitna Shores, using three photos taken from the subdivision’s marketing materials, including one showing the subdivision’s stylized entrance sign.  … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Consumers can’t bring the claim that Pom could against Minute Maid

Posted on August 21, 2015 by rtushnet

Stansfield v. Minute Maid Co., 2015 WL 4873685, No. 4:14cv290 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2015)   The court kicked out consumer protection claims based on the same falsity alleged in Pom Wonderful v. Coca-Cola, on the ground that they were … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Copyright infringement is channeled into (c), not state or Lanham Act claims

Posted on August 19, 2015 by rtushnet

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 →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

IPSC: Other IP

Posted on August 6, 2015 by rtushnet

Other IP  [Insert wry commentary about “fringe” fields like advertising law]   Sarah Burstein, The University of Oklahoma College of Law Reviving Ornamentality    Fed. Cir. killed the doctrine.  Statute says new, original, and ornamental designs can get a design … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What claims work when D allegedly drives P down in Google rank through copying?

Posted on July 17, 2015 by rtushnet

Ryoo Dental, Inc. v. Han, 2015 WL 4208580, No. 15–308 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 9, 2015)   Ryoo Dental, a dental practice, had a website to promote its services, and allegedly spent considerable sums on “search engine optimization fees, photographing, editing, … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

False claims of FDA approval actionable under Lanham Act and state law

Posted on May 22, 2015 by rtushnet

Innovative Health Solutions, Inc. v. DyAnsys, Inc., 2015 WL 2398931, No. 14-cv-05207 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2015)   IHS sells a medical device called P–STIM.  DyAnsys used to be the distributor of P-STIM in the US, but after it lost … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

FDA pre-approval doesn’t bar Lanham Act false advertising claim against device

Posted on May 21, 2015 by rtushnet

Church & Dwight Co. v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics, GMBH, No. 14 Civ. 00585, 2015 WL 2359467 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2015)   Earlier discussion.  SPD argued that the FDCA barred Lanham Act false advertising claims against it because the FDA … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment