Cellphone Spam Violates TCPA–Joffe v. Acacia Mortgage

Joffe v. Acacia Mortgage Corp., No. 1 CA-CV 02-0701 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2005). When is an email a telephone call? The Arizona Court of Appeals says that an email is a telephone call when the receiver gets a…

The FCC Proclaims Itself the UDRP for 800 Numbers

By Eric Goldman From Kevin Poulson’s Wired story: An entrepreneur registers 800-RED-CROS[S]. He claims to have done so because it has the same number as 800-RED-ARMS, and he was running a business by that name at the time. When he…

More on Rappers and Car Dealers

By Mark McKenna In the name of not being left out of the interesting discussion about Snoop Dogg’s trademark lawsuit against Gary Barbera (not to be confused with Hannah Barbara, of Flintstones fame), I thought I would put in my…

Rappers, Car Dealers and Trademarks — John Weighs In

By John Ottaviani Eric and I have been debating the claims in the 50 Cent and Snoop Dogg cases, and whether there can be trademark like protection for “speech patterns.” Not surprisingly, as one who likes “non-traditional” trademarks, I am…

Rappers, Car Dealer Ads, and Expansive Interpretations of Trademark Law

By Eric Goldman Broadus v. Gary Barbera Enterprises, Inc. (E.D. Pa. complaint filed Aug. 2005). Ten days ago I blogged about the rapper 50 Cent’s lawsuit against the Gary Barbera dealership for running a car ad that showed a picture…

Jill, Meet Best Buy’s Friendly Human Shopbot/Profiler

I’m a little surprised this article hasn’t generated more discussion. Last week, the Washington Post ran an article about Best Buy’s efforts to segment and target its customer base. They have developed a set of consumer profiles that they describe…

2004 Case on Advertiser Liability for Spam

Fenn v. Redmond Venture, Inc., 2004 UT App 355 (Utah Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2004). I was digging through my stack and stumbled across this case from last year. It seems apropos to a running theme on this blog about…

McDonald’s is Lovin’ It! — Contest Rules Upheld

By John Ottaviani James v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 04-2383 (7th Cir. 8/2/2005). This is not a technology case per se, unless scratch-off game cards that accompany french fry orders are considered “technology.” However, the contract principles that underlie this case…

FTC Says No Undisclosed Adware? In the Matter of Advertising.com

In the Matter of Advertising.com, Inc., and John Ferber, Federal Trade Commission File No. 042-3196 (consent order announced Aug. 3, 2005). The FTC is signaling that it is sending a “message” with this case. The only problem? I’m not sure…

Are Adware Advertisers Responsible for Adware?

The topic of “who is responsible for what?” in the adware industry keeps coming up. I’ve repeatedly blogged on this topic in somewhat piecemeal fashion, but I finally organized my thoughts into an editorial that ran this morning in News.com….