- “Crash survivor sues publisher, claims he was exploited by book’s false claim of visit to heaven” [Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal on William Alexander “Alex” Malarkey claim against Tyndale House Publishers] More: Lowering the Bar;
- Attorney-client privilege and the raid on Trump lawyer Michael Cohen: my Saturday chat with Yuripzy Morgan of Baltimore’s WBAL radio [listen] On the same general subject, Clark Neily chats with Caleb Brown for the Cato Daily Podcast, and Ken at Popehat has a Stormy Daniels/Michael Cohen civil litigation lawsplainer;
- “While there were many problems with the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill, one thing the Republican-led Congress got absolutely right was defunding Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” [Robert Romano, Daily Torch, earlier on AFFH]
- “The nearest Macy’s department store is several thousand miles away” but a small hair salon in Scotland will need to change its similar name or face lawyers’ wrath [Timothy Geigner, TechDirt]
- Facebook sued for allegedly allowing housing discrimination by way of ad targeting [autoplays] [Seth Fiegerman, CNN Money]
- Beverage equivalent of clear backpacks: South Carolina bill would make it a crime to let teenagers consume energy drinks [Jacob Sullum]
Posts Tagged ‘trademarks’
March 28 roundup
- One-woman false-accusation machine induced Pittsburgh police to file eight criminal cases against couple; one was jailed for six days and the other for six months before she admitted making it up [Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]
- Regulation is the bane of a great many California small businesses, and that goes for Humboldt County marijuana growers too [David Boaz, Cato]
- One Billy Goat might have cause to regret picking trademark fight with another [Timothy Geigner, TechDirt]
- “Antitrust Jurisprudence Is the Right’s Greatest Legal Success” [John McGinnis, Law and Liberty]
- State Attorney General Election Tracker is a new resource from law firm Cozen O’Connor tracking campaign and election news from state attorney general elections across the country;
- “Iowa judge admits hundreds of his rulings were ghost-written by attorneys” [Clark Kauffman, Des Moines Register]
Uneeda Biscuit vs. Iwanta Biscuit
— From a series of illustrations and photographs used as evidence in litigation, part of an exhibition (“Law’s Picture Books”) at NYC’s Grolier Club of more than 140 items from the Yale Law Library’s collection of images and writings on legal themes. The case of the rival cookie boxes resulted in a court’s finding in 1899 that the National Biscuit Co., maker of Uneeda, was entitled to an injunction.
“Why the SUPER BOWL® is the specialest trademark ever”
Ron Coleman at Likelihood of Confusion rounds up years of silliness, some of which we’ve covered here in the past.
January 10 roundup
- Supreme Court takes Maryland gerrymander case to go with the Wisconsin one, Gill v. Whitford, on which it’s already heard oral argument [Benisek v. Lamone] I joined Andrew Langer on WBAL Baltimore’s C4 show to discuss the development [listen] More: Linda Greenhouse, NYT and generally;
- Self-recommending: Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar is out with his top posts of 2017 and they include “Guy Who Got a C on Constitutional-Amendment Paper Gets Constitution Amended,” “Judge Rejects Man’s Claim to Be ‘Some Sort of Agricultural Product‘,” and “It Is Not Illegal to Drive With an Axe Embedded in the Roof of Your Car”;
- Guess who’s supporting “CPSIA for cosmetics” bill, the same way the largest toymakers supported the original CPSIA fiasco? Right [@GabrielRossman on Twitter; earlier on “Personal Care Products Safety Act” and its predecessors]
- Good. Now eliminate it entirely. HUD suspends until 2020 Obama-era “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) program [Emily Badger and John Eligon/New York Times, earlier]
- New conspiracy-minded attack on foodmakers’ use of sugar is led by Stanton Glantz. Yes, that Stanton Glantz [Allison Aubrey/NPR, Vaping Post April, our earlier coverage]
- “Five Below, Trendy Retailer, Sues 10 Below, Ice Cream Seller, For Trademark Infringement” [Timothy Geigner, Techdirt]
November 29 roundup
- Will it ever end? “Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He’s Now Going To Sue Wikipedia” [Mike Masnick, TechDirt, earlier]
- Justice Thomas argues Indian Reorganization Act is unconstitutional [Upstate Citizens for Equality v. U.S., land-into-trust, dissenting from denial of certiorari]
- “How much does it cost to reimburse a probation officer for $60 pants? About $4,300, so far” [John Beauge, PennLive]
- On Gill v. Whitford, partisan gerrymandering, and the uses of math in law [Erica Goldberg]
- Brazil makes progress on fighting corruption, advancing rule of law [Juan Carlos Hidalgo on new Cato policy analysis by Geanluca Lorenzon]
- “Activision are fighting a [trademark] for ‘Call of DooDee’, a dog-poop-removal service” [PC Games]
Velcro: don’t say our name
Funny trademark protection video from the people at Velcro, that is to say, Velcro brand hook and loop fasteners.
“To: brandenforcements@… Mr. Forcements — may I call you Branden?”
California blogger Vincent “Vino” Malone, who writes about his visits to the Olive Garden, penned this retort to a (possibly robotic) takedown notice/infringement-gram from the restaurant chain. [AllOfGarden via Cyrus Farivar, ArsTechnica]
July 19 roundup
- “Biometric Privacy Laws: How a Little-Known Illinois Law Made Facebook Illegal” [Jane Bambauer]
- Organized dentists work to block legal recognition of independent dental therapist practices [Mary Jordan, Washington Post]
- Some yearn to bring back Warren Court (or even more interventionist) antitrust doctrine. Just don’t [John McGinnis]
- “O’Neil is the Wang of Ireland” says apparel trademark disputant [Timothy Geigner, Techdirt]
- “Religious people should live under the same laws as everyone else” was a nice slogan while it lasted [Julie Zauzmer, Washington Post on nuns’ construction of chapel in field so as to block pipeline, plus resulting Twitter thread]
- “Therapy animals are everywhere, but proof that they help is not” [Karin Brulliard, Chicago Tribune]
“Slants” band win trademark battle at high court
In a First Amendment win with many future implications — most immediately for the Washington Redskins football team — the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not allow the Patent and Trademark Office to withhold trademark protection from a rock band because it considers its name to be possibly racially disparaging (or self-disparaging). The holding was unanimous, although the Justices divided on rationale. [Ilya Shapiro/Cato, Betsy Gomez/CBLDF, Eugene Volokh and more (“Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment”)] Earlier here (“Did Cato just file the most not-safe-for-work amicus brief in Supreme Court history?”), here, etc.