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
-
▼
2012
(598)
-
▼
May
(69)
- Minnesota S.Ct. rejects tobacco class action
- eBay case involving pay-for-featured-status progra...
- Amicus brief in Hart v. EA
- High fructose corn syrup is still HFCS
- Of possible interest to international IP types
- Lifewater "all natural" claim not deceptive, other...
- Delayed but long post on LV v. Hyundai
- If a drug manufacturer pays the publication fee, i...
- Not really a surprise: Pom disagrees with my readi...
- "unlawful" conduct causes actionable harm even wit...
- Clive Thompson on the importance of fan fiction an...
- direct targeting of ads confers personal jurisdiction
- What is the limitations/laches period for Lanham A...
- Pom takes another pounding
- Review: False Advertising and the Lanham Act
- FTC ALJ rules many Pom ads misleading, unsubstanti...
- public access to published federally funded research
- False advertising case succeeds as TM claim
- Hamlet in over 60 films
- Brands, not trademarks?
- Plain tobacco packaging at Georgetown
- Georgia State and copyright ownership
- Homeopathic products don't dilute plaintiffs' liti...
- Brand dilution as a design patent theory of harm
- My keen fashion sense: L'Oreal class action certified
- This fruit snack is neither fruity nor snacky
- Sarah Tran on Worth a Thousand Words
- No publicity is bad publicity for Facebook plaintiff
- Out of joint: supplement case survives motion to d...
- Another reason to bring state-law claims: where th...
- One good reason to plead coordinate state-law clai...
- Vague allegations can't plead around first sale
- Australian Dastar-type cases
- What a difference a defense makes: court rejects C...
- Touting unnecessary cancer treatment could be dece...
- DMCA tech demonstration day
- law v. norms, or why anticircumvention law doesn't...
- "Paris shabby chic" not protectable trade dress
- Sugar in the Raw not deceptively advertised as unp...
- IP Small Claims Roundtable part 2
- GW Roundtable on IP Small Claims
- "from the designer of" not clearly nominative fair...
- Undisclosed fees ok if total price disclosed and v...
- INTA politics panel
- INTA equates free with illegal, copyright with tra...
- Recent reading: Chinese fan translations
- The difference between seeking damages and injunct...
- INTA: copyright law for trademark lawyers
- Spy in the House of Trademark Maximalism: ambush m...
- INTA: pharma panel and keyword panel
- Class action spreads
- Weak TM case won't justify fee award to defendants
- Anticircumvention is weird and lacks attachment to...
- INTA: outer limits and dilution
- Another false marking defeat post AIA
- Descriptiveness wasn't my first thought
- Global family feud over allegedly stolen mark
- Roflcon Keynote: Supercuts
- Meme-literate law professor (insert punchline here)
- 5-Hour Energy and neverending litigation
- Minimal call logs can't be used to infer widesprea...
- False advertising and fandom collide
- The secret non-sharer
- Identical materials sent to over 1200 recipients n...
- A word means what I say it means?
- foot fault: overlapping TM and copyright claims in...
- alleged privacy failures don't violate consumer pr...
- Columbia Journalism Review on campaigns' use of ne...
- Competitor's positive ads aren't disparaging for i...
-
▼
May
(69)
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 (538)
- can-spam (1)
- cfaa (12)
- cfps (53)
- class actions (278)
- cmi (19)
- comics (37)
- commercial speech (273)
- conferences (930)
- consumer protection (970)
- content moderation (3)
- contracts (101)
- copying (195)
- copyright (1664)
- counterfeiting (1)
- creative commons (12)
- cultural property (10)
- cybersquatting (1)
- damages (161)
- dastar (197)
- defamation (203)
- derivative works (2)
- design patent (57)
- dilution (257)
- disclosures (101)
- disparagement (32)
- dmca (203)
- drm (72)
- evidence (1)
- false advertising (3136)
- false association (13)
- false designation of origin (7)
- false endorsement (13)
- fan fiction (87)
- fanworks (190)
- fda (275)
- fees (35)
- first amendment (445)
- ftc (185)
- 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 (137)
- my lawsuits (16)
- my writings (114)
- net neutrality (5)
- parody (27)
- patent (226)
- patents (136)
- peer production (27)
- preclusion (1)
- preemption (270)
- presentations (119)
- privacy (113)
- procedure (146)
- property (18)
- reading list (311)
- remedies (282)
- right of publicity (267)
- secondary liability (178)
- securities (8)
- standing (357)
- surveys (109)
- teaching (38)
- tortious interference (116)
- trade secrets (81)
- trademark (2068)
- traditional knowledge (11)
- unconscionability (5)
- unfairness (64)
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment