-
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: surveys
Shoes and surveys (picture post)
Since apparently there was some question whether the shoes I asked about post-Star Athletica were really shoes, here is proof: Not much less functional than the average super-high heel Also, I randomly got selected for a trademark infringement survey on … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged design patent, Shoes and surveys (picture post) copyright, surveys, trademark
Leave a comment
Court approves conjoint analysis to determine damages in consumer class action
Morales v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., 2017 WL 2598556, No. CV14-04387 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2017) Plaintiffs alleged that they were misled by Kraft’s use of the term “natural cheese” on its “Natural Cheese Fat Free Shredded Fat Free Cheddar … Continue reading
Internet surveys are admissible (but may raise IRB concerns)
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, No. 13-cv-00749, 2017 WL 1377991 (D. Utah Mar. 2, 2017) Bimbo charged that defendants misappropriated its trade secret for making Grandma Sycamore’s Home-Maid bread, and infringed on its trade dress related to the packaging … Continue reading
court says product reformulation might be deceptive if survey supports claim
Nutrition Distribution LLC v. Driven Sports, 2015 WL 12645002, No. LA CV13-06195 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015) Nutrition sued defendants over their sales of a nutrition supplement product called “Craze.” In July 2013, defendants discontinued the sale of the initial … Continue reading
Lumps in materiality survey fail to justify its exclusion
Select Comfort Corp. v. Tempur Sealy Int’l, Inc., No. 13-2451, 2016 WL 5496340 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2016) The court resolves various motions surrounding expert testimony in this false advertising case about the effects of certain comparative claims on Select … Continue reading
both sides do it: court in Trump Univ. case resolves some expert squabbles
Cohen v. Trump, No.: 3:13-cv-2519, 2016 WL 4487172 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) Colorful personalities can produce colorful cases; first, Pom Wonderful, now Trump. The court certified a class action under RICO for people who bought Trump University real estate … Continue reading
Cal. court sensibly rejects Fourth Circuit’s GNC rule on consumer protection claims
Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 2016 WL 1534784, No. 13-cv-01271 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2016) This case revisits an issue with which courts have struggled: when consumer plaintiffs plead that a product advertised as clinically proven isn’t, is that a … Continue reading
Flagging supplement case revived
ThermoLife Intern., LLC v. Gaspari Nutrition Inc., — Fed.Appx. —-, 2016 WL 1460171, No. 14–15180 (9th Cir. Apr. 14, 2016) ThermoLife sued Gaspari (GNI) false advertising under the Lanham Act and unfair competition under Arizona common law, based on … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged fda, Flagging supplement case revived false advertising, preemption, surveys
Leave a comment
Expert testimony in false advertising cases can rely on studies of other events
Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Method Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 2016 WL 1464639, No. 3:14CV00016 (W.D. Va. Apr. 13, 2016) Previous opinion on how announcing a product launch and not following up might be false advertising discussed here. Here, the court resolves … Continue reading
Something smells: new product makes competitor’s claims instantly literally false
Playtex Prods., LLC v. Munchkin, Inc., 2016 WL 1276450, No. 14-cv-1308 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2016) Playtex makes a diaper pail, the Diaper Genie, with three current varieties: Diaper Genie Elite, Diaper Genie Essentials, and Diaper Genie Mini. Soiled diapers … Continue reading