By: David R. Gabor

Professor Michael L. Marlow of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo recently published a preview of his paper on cancer rates and Proposition 65 entitled, "Too Much (Questionable) Information?" See Wall Street Journal, page A13, January 21, 2014.

Proposition 65 is the popular name for the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, codified at California Health & Safety Code section 25249.7, et seq. This now-infamous California voter initiative is why California residents and visitors alike are accosted by signage on physical locations such hotel lobbies and parking garages as well as on certain commercial items such as screwdrivers and soldering paste, threatening that they are exposed to toxic levels of carcinogens or reproductive toxicants by entering the property or using the product.


Continue Reading Proposition 65 – Twenty-Seven Years Later And Still No Observable Effect

 By: Scott Hervey

Once again, California leads the nation in passing online privacy consumer protection legislation. On September 30, 2013 Governor Jerry Brown signed into law A.B 370 which adds new provisions to California’s existing Online Privacy Protection Act (Business and Professions Code Section 22575).  These new provisions require the operators of websites, online services and  mobile applications to disclose how they respond to an electronic request not to track an individual consumer’s online activities over time and across different Web sites or online services. According to the bill’s author, Al Muratsuchi, since California passed CalOPPA in 2004, evolving technology and new business practices have raised new privacy concerns, including concerns over online behavioral tracking.


Continue Reading California Passes New Privacy Law That May Require Revisions to Most Online Privacy Policies.

by Dale C. Campbell

 

Section 43(a) the Lanham Act provides for liability related to unregistered marks. Section 43(a) provides for civil liability for any person who, IN connection with any goods or service uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol or any combination thereof, or any false designation origin, false or misleading description of fact or false or misleading misrepresentation of which (a) is likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of the goods or services by another person or (b) in commercial advertising or promotion misrepresents the nature, character qualities or origin of his or her good, service or commercial activity. Subsection (a) is commonly known as the false origin claim and subsection (b) is commonly known as false advertising claim. In short, one can’t be liable for claims of false origin even if the statements are not made in the course of commercial advertising or promotion as required in subsection (b).


Continue Reading LANHAM ACT DAMAGES – What Is the Plaintiff’s Burden?

By Jeff Pietsch

Last year, Google lost the first round of a court battle against Vulcan Golf, a golf club manufacturer, in a trademark and cybersquatting dispute. In that decision, the US District Court in Illinois ruled that Google could be sued for its role in serving ads on websites that use domain names that violate trademark and cybersquatting laws. In the latest round of decisions on this case, the court denied class certification damaging the plaintiffs’ hopes in prevailing in this matter.  

 


Continue Reading Class Action Certification Denied in Google Trademark Case