2H 2018 Quick Links, Part 5 (Privacy, Advertising, Consumer Reviews)

Privacy * Winston Smith v. Facebook, No. 17-16206 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2018): “the connection between a person’s browsing history and his or her own state of health is too tenuous to support Plaintiffs’ contention that the disclosure requirements of…

Announcing the Fourth Edition of Advertising & Marketing Law: Cases & Materials by Tushnet & Goldman

Announcing the Fourth Edition of Advertising & Marketing Law: Cases & Materials by Tushnet & Goldman

Rebecca Tushnet and I are pleased to announce the publication of the fourth edition of our casebook, Advertising & Marketing Law: Cases & Materials. It is available for purchase in the following formats: * A DRM-free PDF file. Price: $12 *…

2H 2018 Quick Links, Part 3 (Keyword Advertising)

2H 2018 Quick Links, Part 3 (Keyword Advertising)

* St. George Executive Shuttle LLC v. Western Trails Charter & Tours LLC, 2018 WL 3350348 (D. Utah July 9, 2018). This is a competitive keyword advertising lawsuit involving the purported trademark “St. George Shuttle” (St. George is a city…

2H 2018 Quick Links, Part 2 (Trademarks)

2H 2018 Quick Links, Part 2 (Trademarks)

*  Chanel, Inc. v. Wgaca,  2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158077 (SDNY Sept. 14, 2018): Chanel’s amended complaint plausibly alleges that WGACA’s use of the hashtag #WGACACHANEL infringes Chanel’s trademarks. It alleges that WGACA conjoined its acronym with the Chanel trademark…

Avvo Defeats False Advertising Lawsuit Alleging Pay-to-Play–Davis v. Avvo

The plaintiff alleges that Avvo provides editorial benefits to lawyers who advertise on Avvo, which causes the advertisers to get prospective clients who would have chosen the non-advertising lawyers. There are some parallels to the lawsuits against Yelp alleging pay-to-play,…

The Ongoing Saga of the Florida Bar’s Angst About Competitive Keyword Advertising

In August, I reported on the Florida Bar’s continued angst about regulating competitive keyword advertising by lawyers. Read my post, “The Florida Bar and Competitive Keyword Advertising: A Tragicomedy (in 3 Parts),” for the full background. The short story is…

Consumers Don’t Confuse Almond Milk and Cow Milk–Painter v. Blue Diamond

A putative class claimed Blue Diamond “mislabeled its almond beverages as ‘almond milk’ when they should be labeled ‘imitation milk’ because they substitute for and resemble dairy milk but are nutritionally inferior to it.” The lawsuit fails. The court responded…

Your Periodic Reminder That Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid--Passport Health v. Avance

Your Periodic Reminder That Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Passport Health v. Avance

The parties compete for the provision of health services related to traveling, like immunizations. The defendant Avance bought keyword ads triggered on the plaintiff’s trademark “Passport Health.” In 2013, the trademark owner complained, and Avance apparently dropped the Google ad…

If Your Trademark Case Depends on Showing Initial Interest Confusion, Save Your Money--Select Comfort v. John Baxter

If Your Trademark Case Depends on Showing Initial Interest Confusion, Save Your Money–Select Comfort v. John Baxter

I’ve bashed the initial interest confusion doctrine for decades. It’s one of the worst doctrinal “innovations” in trademark law–ever. However, you might have noticed that I haven’t blogged many initial interest confusion cases recently. Why? Because the phrase rarely shows…

Restricting Competitive Keyword Ads Is Anti-Competitive--FTC v. 1-800 Contacts

Restricting Competitive Keyword Ads Is Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts

Starting in 2002 and continuing for about a decade, 1-800 Contacts systematically locked up many of its online contact lenses retail competitors into settlement agreements that prohibited the parties from bidding on each other’s trademarks at the search engines. Perhaps…