-
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
5th Circuit agrees that joint TM owners can’t sue each other under any Lanham Act theory
Reed v. Marshall, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1822673, No. 24-20198 (5th Cir. Jul. 2, 2025) Jade, an R&B, hip hop, and soul vocal group, rose to prominence in the 1990s. Jade disbanded in 1995, when the members began pursuing … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged dilution, false advertising, false designation of origin, standing, trademark
Leave a comment
Scotts loses trade dress claim over green & gold for Miracle-Gro
Scotts Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 2025 WL 1779167, No. 2:24-cv-4199 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 27, 2025) A different Scotts trade dress claim than the one I blogged last year. While it’s hard to get rid of trademark claims on … Continue reading
parties’ marketing to Spanish speakers in SoCal is not meaningful marketing overlap
Olé Mexican Foods Inc. v. SK Market Inc., 2025 WL 1717646, No. 2:25-cv-01877-WLH-BFM (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2025) Courts have already converged on “everybody uses the internet to market, so that’s not a significant overlap.” This is the first decision … Continue reading
Deadline extended to Friday: TM scholarship roundtable
TM scholarship roundtable The Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable co-hosted by Harvard, NYU, and the University of Pennsylvania will take place this year at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA. The Roundtable is designed to be a … Continue reading
Reminder: TM scholarship roundtable
The Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable co-hosted by Harvard, NYU, and the University of Pennsylvania will take place this year at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA. The Roundtable is designed to be a forum for the discussion … Continue reading
Sixteenth Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable Session 4: How We Got to Trademark Use 2.0
Robert Burrell: use in Commonwealth systems came from strict liability for double identity—once that was extended to advertising, there are a whole lot of nonconfusing/beneficial uses of marks in advertising. TM use was brought in as a safety valve to … Continue reading
Sixteenth Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable Session 3 continued
Midpoint discussant: Laura Heymann Is the goal consistency? Is the goal limiting principles that can end a case early? Is use the right tool? Is it a proxy? To what extent should we accept the rest of the landscape as … Continue reading
Sixteenth Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable Session 3: What is the Significance of Trademark Use 2.0?
Introduction: Mark Lemley: What VIP actually says: Rogers test insulates from liability when use is only non-source identifying. Cardinal sin is to undermine source-indicating functioning: LV modification of mark in suitcase market implicates the core concerns of TM law. That … Continue reading
Sixteenth Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable Session 2: part 2
Mid-point discussants: Rebecca Tushnet Continuing the theme of offering a series of observations: Picking up on the relevance of 33(b)/referential use. First, for textualists, it may be true that 33(b) indicates that there is no general use as a mark … Continue reading
Sixteenth Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable Session 2: Trademark Use as an Element of Infringement Analysis
Mike Grynberg: SCt opinions since 2008. Courts don’t care about TM law; every now & then a judge does, but keeping the general rule in mind is useful—can’t expect dcts in particular to be able to sit back and explore all … Continue reading
Rebecca Tushnet 