-
Recent Posts
- surveys/expert evidence of deception still not required in consumer protection claims
- when is a publisher sufficiently beholden to a manufacturer to engage in commercial speech?
- Happy inauguration day to Redbubble in particular: 9th Cir. affirms functionality in Lettuce Turnip the Beet
- Dastardly DoorDash fails to get restaurant complaint dismissed, including under UCL/FAL
- WVa SCt immunizes religious schools and camps for false advertising about services
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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: tortious interference
Monster Energy can’t show falsity, can show tortious interference (but not irreparable injury)
Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2019 WL 3099711, No. EDCV 18-1882 JGB (SHKx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2019) The court denied a preliminary injunction on Monster’s claim that Vital falsely advertised its “Super Creatine” as “creatine,” because there … Continue reading
lack of specifics, even with certification involved, dooms falsity claim
Hydro-Blok USA LLC v. Wedi Corp., 2019 WL 2515318, No. C15-671 TSZ (W.D. Wash. Jun. 18, 2019) Wedi and Hydro-Blok compete in the market for construction materials and sealants for use in bathroom systems, including showers. Wedi accused Hydro-Blok of … Continue reading
variety in superiority claims can add up to disparagement
Deerpoint Group, Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC, 2019 WL 2513756, No. 18-CV-0536 AWI BAM (E.D. Cal. Jun. 18, 2019) Deerpoint sued Agrigenix for violating the Lanham Act and California’s UCL via false advertising, violating California and federal trade secret law, and … Continue reading
photo of competitor’s product not false where it’s indistinguishable; also some design patent functionality
Tactical Medical Solutions, Inc. v. KARL 2019 WL 2435859, No. 14 C 06035 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 11, 2019) TMS sued Karl and his sole proprietorship, EMI, for infringement of TMS’s design and utility patents by selling a “knockoff” version of … Continue reading
law firm alleging clients lost to competitor satisfies Lexmark, in part
Brave Law Firm, LLC v. Truck Accident Lawyers Group, Inc., No. 17-1156-EFM-JPO, 2019 WL 2073872 (D. Kan. May 10, 2019) Brave, a personal injury firm, sued various parties for violating the Lanham Act and Kansas state law. It alleged … Continue reading
Non-party video provides plausibility to falsify claim that hose is “tough enough to tow a truck”
Telebrands Corp. v. Ragner Technol. Corp., No. 16-3474 (ES) (MAH), 2019 WL 1468156 (D.N.J. Apr. 3, 2019) “The dispute between these parties spans multiple lawsuits, multiple jurisdictions, and even multiple countries.” Ragner owns patents for expandable hoses. Telebrands sells expandable … Continue reading
Allegedly defamatory claims in e-recycling report weren’t commercial speech despite some economic incentive
Electronic Recycling Ass’n v. Basel Action Network, 2019 WL 1453575, No. C18-1601-MJP (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2019) Plaintiff ERA is a Canadian non-profit corporation that specializes in recovering, refurbishing, and reusing discarded electronic equipment or “e-waste.” When it determines that … Continue reading
