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
-
▼
2016
(402)
-
▼
December
(30)
- Contracts can last longer than headaches: 1990 con...
- Does this image evoke the Starbucks logo?
- Hamilton, the gift that keeps on giving ...
- MOB receives early Xmas present: 2d Circuit affirm...
- Update on my suit against ICE
- kefir confusion: court finds definition of little-...
- Court finds Lanham Act laches on the pleadings giv...
- The NYT on Frederik Colting's latest endeavor
- SCOTUSblog symposium on Tam
- Facebook, Twitter fans could substitute for sales ...
- Can bait & switch cause actionable harm even thoug...
- Trademark/(c)/ROP question of the day, Stephen Kin...
- Falsely claiming TM ownership isn't false advertis...
- Second Circuit will trust FDA on drug facts, not o...
- Exposure to false advertising doesn't create Artic...
- When does a false advertising case create a right ...
- Business betrayal isn't false advertising, could b...
- Announcing the Open Source Property Casebook
- Reading list: why search engines shouldn't impleme...
- NYIPLA IP writing competition
- Trademark questions of the day, pictorial edition
- Copyright question of the day, Colting edition
- Fifth Circuit reverses multimillion-dollar antitru...
- Mardi Gras bead dogs live
- ... and the Best Title of the Year award goes to M...
- Update re: DMCA re-registration
- Failing to disclose refund policy does not make pr...
- Saving people, suing things: TM lawsuit over -hunt...
- Ugly facts doom "Life is Beautiful" infringement c...
- DMCA agent re-registration process removes one ann...
-
▼
December
(30)
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 (947)
- content moderation (3)
- contracts (100)
- copying (195)
- copyright (1656)
- 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 (3078)
- 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 (113)
- 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.
1 comment:
I've been casually following this case through the Likelihood of Confusion blog and I don't understand why equal protection isn't part of the appeal. If the band were British or African or Israeli, no one would bat an eyelash at The Slants. But because they are Asian, it is rejected on grounds of offensiveness. So the source of the objection here is not the name of the band, but the racial make-up of the band. Which is, obviously, bias and discrimination.
Post a Comment