SAD Scheme Plaintiff Must Pay $40k to Defendant–Guangzhou Tinpod v. Schedule A Defendants
The plaintiff is Guangzhou Tinpod Electronic Technology Co. The plaintiff initially sued under the XYZ pseudonym and hasn’t updated the case caption, even though its identity is no longer sealed. I presume the plaintiff and many of the 44 defendants…
Courts Still Can’t Let Go of the Possibility that Individual Prices are Copyrightable–Rapaport v. Nivoda
In my previous blog post on this case, I wrote: This lawsuit raises one of the venerable but surprisingly vexing copyright law questions: when is a price copyrightable? That might sound like a stupid question because “facts” aren’t copyrightable and…
New York Judge Shuts Down a SAD Scheme TRO Request–CJB Global v. Schedule A Defendants
This SAD Scheme case ended up before Judge Buchwald, who shreds it. Judge Buchwald recaps the scheme’s fundamental corruptness: if all of plaintiff’s requested ex parte relief were to be granted, plaintiff would at the outset be entitled to broad…
Grok’s TOS Formation Failed–Skaggs v. X.ai
This case naturally raises some questions that Musk might choose to pose to Grok, like: “Grok, is it bad when TOS formation fails?” “Grok, what are best practices for TOS formation and does our current TOS formation process satisfy those?”…
Every SAD Scheme Opinion Is Weird In Its Own Way–Cai v. Chaozhoushi Yitong Dianzi Shangwu Youxiangongsi
This case generally follows the SAD Scheme template, but with several twists: it’s in the Western District of Texas, not the more typical N.D. Ill. it’s a copyright claim rather than the more typical trademark claim it’s against a single…
11th Circuit Rejects Keyword Advertising Liability–Deltona v. NOCO
This case involves two competitors in the vehicle-battery charger industry. The plaintiff calls its offering “Battery Tender” (based on the analogy of a ship’s tender) and claims trademark rights in the term. Believing that the term is generic, NOCO began…
Another Court Shuts the Door on “Yelp Law” Drive-By Lawsuits–Arterberry v. Peet’s
Last week, I blogged the Moss v. GoDaddy decision holding that a key part of California’s Yelp Law doesn’t authorize a private right of action. If you didn’t read that post, go read it now because this post assumes you…
When You Reject Cookies, You Might Be Agreeing to Arbitration–Alba v. Harbor Freight
Starting in 2024, Harbor Freight deployed the following cookie banner: The court accepts Harbor Freight’s claim that the “2024 Cookie Banner was displayed on each page on the Website until the user interacted with it, even if the user had…
Appeals Court Shuts Down Bogus Private Enforcements of the ‘Yelp Law’–Moss v. GoDaddy
The “Yelp Law,” California Civil Code 1670.8, has two main provisions: (a)(1) A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement…
Federal Circuit Rebuffs SAD Scheme Plaintiff–Shenzhen Jisu v. Annex A Defendants
Nomenclature note: This is an Annex A case, not a Schedule A case, but they are the same thing. Snarky note about design patents: This is a design patent case. I don’t mean any disrespect towards design patent aficionados, but…