-
Recent Posts
- CFP: emerging First Amendment scholars
- “ambiguity” is taking hold in consumer protection class actions, but it’s not the Lanham Act concept
- conducting dueling internet searches converts attys into fact witnesses in TM case
- Santa Clara IP Conference: Where Do We Go From Here?
- Santa Clara IP conference: How It’s Going: What Went Wrong?
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: trademark
comparison charts could infringe, but properly labeled internal search didn’t
Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. v. Peninsula Components, Inc., 2023 WL 9051998, No. 19-513 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 28, 2023) Penn Engineering designs and manufactures various types of fasteners sold under various trademarks, and alleged that Peninsula sold identical fasteners while … Continue reading
reseller’s unsuccessful challenge to takedown notices leads to more successful infringement counterclaim
CDC Newburgh Inc. v. STM Bags, LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 6066136, 22-cv-1597 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2023) CDC sued STM, alleging violations of New York state and federal law arising from STM’s involvement in the removal of ten … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged defamation, false advertising, tortious interference, trademark
Leave a comment
Using dominant competitor’s part names/numbers for comparison isn’t false advertising, TM infringement, or (c) infringement
There really should be a fee shift when a competitor harasses another competitor for daring to make comparisons of part numbers, but we don’t seem to live in that world. Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Mitek Inc., 2023 WL 8697700, No. … Continue reading
Amicus brief on applying the Lanham Act to political speech post-JDI
In support of neither party. from Blogger http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2023/12/amicus-brief-on-applying-lanham-act-to.html
Nominative fair use: when a logo is not too much
It may well be true that nominative fair use often entails just using a word, not a logo, but courts occasionally recognize that there are situations where the logo/trade dress is actually an important means of communicating and should still … Continue reading
Artistic Expression or Crass Commercialism? Drawing the lines in Right of Publicity, Lanham Act, and Commercial Speech Cases
PLI Media Law conference RT: There’s been a rapid and somewhat disorienting shift from a seemingly ever-growing First Amendment freedom of speech to a seeming indifference to speech and press based claims (as contrasted to religious freedom claims) in many … Continue reading
What’s next after Elster?
UNH symposium: Section Two Small Panel III – What’s Next? Moderated by Peter Karol, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law RT: Organized my remarks in response to the oral arguments in Elster, hopefully not too repetitive. Strong job by gov’t … Continue reading
Old Bay or 420 Bud?
This sticker doesn’t seem particularly likely to confuse to me, and dilution is bunk: from Blogger http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2023/10/old-bay-or-420-bud.html
TM co-owner can’t challenge uses authorized by other co-owners (bonus Lexmark reasoning)
Reed v. Marshall, 2023 WL 6963661, No. H-21-3942 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2023) In 1991, Reed and defendants Marshall and Harris formed the recording group Jade, and in 1992 they signed an exclusive recording agreement with a now-defunct label, Giant. … Continue reading
TM and takings claims against Puerto Rico fail: license plates/tags aren’t use in commerce
Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Urrutia, No. 22-1373 (GMM), 2023 WL 6201397, — F. Supp. 3d — (D.P.R. Sept. 22, 2023) Plaintiffs own Roberto Clemente’s IP rights and a registration for ROBERTO CLEMENTE for “figurines, statues and statuettes made of non-precious … Continue reading