-
Recent Posts
- disgorgement can’t be a lottery windfall–even when D was engaged in illegal gambling
- 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?
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
More B&B: Fraud on the PTO that led to years of extra litigation isn’t “exceptional” for fee purposes
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 17-1570 (8th Cir. Dec. 21, 2018) H/T C.E. Petit. This comedy of errors might (might!) be ending. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Hargis and its … Continue reading
low volume of confused callers doesn’t establish irreparable harm
TrueNorth Companies, L.C. v. Trunorth Warranty Plans, LLC, No. C17-31-LTS, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2018 WL 6438370 (N.D. Iowa Dec. 7, 2018) TrueNorth sued TN Warranty for trademark infringement and related claims based on the parties’ respective design logos: plaintiff’s … Continue reading
Honey Badger don’t care for different reasons: court fixes artistic relevance but still doubles down on transformativeness
Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc., No. 16-56715 (9th Cir. Nov. 20, 2018) Previous opinion discussed here; amicus brief that may have influenced the court to withdraw that opinion and put out a superseding one here. The court found a triable … Continue reading
In which I appear as a sideshow (but ABC gets the right result on TM/(c) claim based on news report)
Manigault v. ABC Inc., 17-CV-7375 (KNF), 2018 WL 5818101 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2018) I show up in this opinion because I wrote a blog post and the pro se plaintiff decided that I was some sort of publicist for ABC … Continue reading
A watered-down finding of TM infringement: prevailing party gets $0 and no injunction, court tells it to go home
Evoqua Water Technologies LLC v. M.W. Watermark, LLC, No. 16-cv-14, 2018 WL 5784073 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2018) Eric Goldman will probably appreciate the court’s takeaway here: “Plaintiff and Defendants are not only business competitors, but also stepchildren, in a … Continue reading
Rally ’round the difference between valid and merely descriptive: 8th Circuit gives claimants much to ponder
Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc. v. Rushmore Photo & Gifts, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2018 WL 5726690 2018 WL 5726690, No. 17-1762, No. 17-1869, No. 17-2712, No. 17-2731 (8th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018) The court says some very interesting things about … Continue reading
We Buy Houses registration defeats fee award despite its genericity
Express Homebuyers USA, LLC v. WBH Marketing, Inc., No. 17-cv-00736, 2018 WL 5303327 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2018) Disappointingly, the court here treats assertion of registered trademarks as what seems like a complete defense to arguments that defendant should receive … Continue reading
allegedly perfidious salesman protected from passing off liability, but might have engaged in false advertising
Burton v. Label, LLC, No. 15-CV-5793 (VSB), 2018 WL 4759735 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018) Label, founded by the Millers, sells bespoke and custom men’s clothing throughout the United States. Schwartzman (for whom Burton is the trustee) worked for Label as … Continue reading
Amazon not liable for use of TM in review
Sen v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2018 WL 4680018, No. 16-CV-01486-JAH-JLB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018) Sen owns the trademark “Baiden” for skin-exfoliation products. Amazon bought “Baiden” through Google’s AdWords program and on other search engines. In 2012, Sen sued Amazon for … Continue reading
Non-TM owner can plead false advertising claim for confusing use of TM it used to own
Desmond v. Taxi Affiliation Services LLC, 2018 WL 4589999, No. 17 C 8326 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2018) Desmond is the Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Yellow Cab Affiliation, a former Chicago taxicab affiliation with over 1600 … Continue reading