Along with the "Health's Angels," Pom Wonderful is also courting the fashion-forward. Blurring of Juicy Couture?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Rebecca Tushnet
False advertising and more
Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet
Email subscription
ABA Blawg 100
Posts
Subscribe via RSS or LinkedIn
"Bright young [wo]man"/"Yo, who the F is this?"
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(392)
-
▼
February
(22)
- IP Scholars Roundtable at Drake
- Drake IP Scholars, Panel 5
- Drake IP Scholars, Panel 3
- NPR segment on vidders
- Dilution recommended reading
- False advertising counterclaim fails for lack of p...
- CleanPlays? Derivative works you might not have e...
- Pom squad: more Pom Wonderful ads
- Rebound: basketball false advertising verdict reve...
- keyword buys as unfair competition
- Corrective drug ads
- The Boundaries of IP at William & Mary
- The Boundaries of IP at William & Mary
- Bride(vendor) Wars: dueling bridal expos litigate ...
- Reasonable royalties for uses that never would hav...
- The Boundaries of IP at William & Mary
- The Boundaries of IP at William & Mary
- EFF seeking to help remix artists on YouTube
- This is why I don't believe in most forms of "gene...
- New note on 43(a)(1)(A) standing
- CFP: assertions of rights by insurgent groups
- Pointy-haired boss counsels false advertising
-
▼
February
(22)
Labels
- 1201 (19)
- 1202 (2)
- 230 (96)
- acpa (16)
- advertising (283)
- antitrust (49)
- arbitration (3)
- art law (36)
- attribution (28)
- b (1)
- blogging (23)
- california (536)
- can-spam (1)
- cfaa (12)
- cfps (48)
- class actions (277)
- cmi (19)
- comics (37)
- commercial speech (269)
- conferences (917)
- consumer protection (948)
- content moderation (3)
- contracts (100)
- copying (195)
- copyright (1657)
- counterfeiting (1)
- creative commons (12)
- cultural property (10)
- cybersquatting (1)
- damages (159)
- dastar (196)
- defamation (203)
- derivative works (2)
- design patent (57)
- dilution (257)
- disclosures (96)
- disparagement (29)
- dmca (203)
- drm (72)
- evidence (1)
- false advertising (3079)
- false association (12)
- false designation of origin (6)
- false endorsement (13)
- fan fiction (87)
- fanworks (190)
- fda (273)
- fees (35)
- first amendment (442)
- ftc (184)
- g (1)
- geographic indications (43)
- go (1)
- google (89)
- insurance (72)
- interviews (5)
- jobs (2)
- jurisdiction (5)
- libraries (18)
- misappropriation (10)
- moral rights (18)
- music (136)
- my lawsuits (16)
- my writings (114)
- net neutrality (5)
- parody (27)
- patent (224)
- patents (136)
- peer production (27)
- preclusion (1)
- preemption (268)
- presentations (118)
- privacy (113)
- procedure (145)
- property (18)
- reading list (308)
- remedies (275)
- right of publicity (264)
- secondary liability (178)
- securities (8)
- standing (354)
- surveys (106)
- teaching (38)
- tortious interference (116)
- trade secrets (81)
- trademark (2042)
- traditional knowledge (11)
- unconscionability (5)
- unfairness (62)
- warranties (14)
Things I've read
Creative Commons/disclaimer
Text on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Pictures and works quoted may be subject to other parties' copyrights.
I speak for myself. On this blog, I do not and cannot speak for Harvard Law School, the Organization for Transformative Works and/or AO3.
2 comments:
Did you catch the New Yorker article about Pom? Dubious health claims galore: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/080331fa_fact_fortini
I'm not too big on the juice itself but I do like their ads... They are pretty catchy.
Post a Comment