Tag Archives: trademark

Competitor can’t challenge compliance w/certification standards

Board-Tech Electronic Co. v. Eaton Electric Holdings LCC, 2017 WL 4990659, No. 17-cv-5028 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2017) Board-Tech accused its competitor in the light switch market, Eaton, of false advertising because, while Eaton was authorized to apply the “UL” certification … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Consumers can’t recover for GM’s self-tarnishment

In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, — F.Supp.3d —- 2017 WL 2839154, No. 14–MD–2543 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 30, 2017) This multidistrict litigation arose from the 2014 recall by General Motors LLC (New GM) of General Motors (GM) vehicles that … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Initial decision in FTC 1-800 case finding that anti-keyword agreements violated antitrust law

Agreed-on limits on advertising, like agreed-on limits on other inputs, risk being a per se violation of the antitrust laws.  Here, a blanket ban, including a negative keyword requirement (so that someone bidding on “contacts” wouldn’t get ads run against … Continue reading

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

Website copying allegations allow potpourri of claims

DHI Group, Inc. v. Kent, No. 16-1670, 2017 WL 4837730 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2017) DHI and Oilpro compete in the market for websites for oil and gas professionals that include job postings. DHI filed a lawsuit against Oilpro and … Continue reading

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

9th Circuit rules failure to recognize labeled ads as such “implausible”

Novation Ventures, LLC v. J.G. Wentworth Co., No. 16-55289, 2017 WL 4711477 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2017) District court opinion discussed here. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of this case against J.G. Wentworth arguing that its use of … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Errant earrings: (c) but not trade dress success likely, still no irreparable harm

Ear Charms, Inc. v. Bling Jewelry, Inc., 2017 WL 2957796, No. CV 16-02091 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) Sandra Callisto designed a “stylish alternative to pierced earrings” for Ear Charms, specifically “wave” earrings, which allegedly bore “a unique and distinctive … Continue reading

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

Brief on TM issues in ASTM v. Public Resource

Mark McKenna and I, with other trademark professors, have written a brief in the ASTM case.  Thanks to Sam Bagenstos for last-minute filing assistance. from Blogger http://ift.tt/2hy8HjI

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment