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
-
▼
2014
(518)
-
▼
December
(38)
- Pom Wonderful's happy new year on likely confusion
- Transformative work of the day
- Failure to disclose potato variety isn't misleading
- Seen at the Spy Museum
- Rogers applies when film is simply named for chara...
- Sony in the Killzone: case over resolution continues
- Do you have to buy the IP to buy the "company"?
- scientific claims in ordinary ads aren't protected...
- you can't a accuse competitor of lawbreaking when ...
- irreparable harm is permissible inference, Third C...
- Soul survivor: publicity and TM claims against rec...
- the intersection of FTC US origin guidelines and t...
- Is a bigger sucker a protected consumer?
- restrictions on lawyer ads touting past results un...
- Consumer suit against juice name preempted
- Transformative use of the day, judicial edition
- PTO roundtable on the accuracy and integrity of th...
- Dastar bars false advertising claim based on paten...
- Actual confusion irrelevant when Rogers v. Grimald...
- plaintiff must identify elements of trade dress, s...
- It's all about control: how to get a survey excluded
- Public Knowledge on the monkey selfie threat letter
- Reading list: Putting Intellectual Property in Its...
- Reading list: facts versus opinions in mandatory d...
- When is a 13-year discrepancy immaterial?
- False advertising claims not arbitrable when ads p...
- Garcia v. Google thoughts: input welcome!
- ABA teleconference on irreparable harm in Lanham A...
- A case peppered with TM and advertising issues
- Religion isn't (yet) a defense to false advertising
- B&N almost entirely off the hook for copying backp...
- No free lift: ad-as-contract claim survives
- How do you keep them in the library after they've ...
- ABA Blawg 100: submitted for your consideration
- Falsity of political ad irrelevant to constitution...
- B&B v. Hargis: just one reaction
- Lack of affirmative statement dooms Lanham Act claim
- Disparagement to suppliers doesn't trigger Lanham Act
-
▼
December
(38)
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 (537)
- can-spam (1)
- cfaa (12)
- cfps (51)
- class actions (278)
- cmi (19)
- comics (37)
- commercial speech (272)
- conferences (930)
- consumer protection (965)
- 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 (100)
- disparagement (32)
- dmca (203)
- drm (72)
- evidence (1)
- false advertising (3126)
- false association (12)
- false designation of origin (7)
- false endorsement (13)
- fan fiction (87)
- fanworks (190)
- fda (275)
- fees (35)
- first amendment (444)
- 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 (2066)
- 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