I agree with 43(B)log: this ‘commercial speech’ case has interesting ramifications wrt ‘anonymous’ plants and false advertising:
The FDA seized one shipment of plaintiff’s product (West Indian spices) because it was tainted. A local newspaper targeting the West Indian community reported on the seizure in an article that ‘reads as if’ it were written by one of plaintiff’s competitors. The implication of the news article is that you should avoid all of plaintiff’s products. One of plaintiff’s competitors distributes the article via email. Plaintiff sues the competitor (and, seemingly, not the newspaper) for defamation and false advertising (alleging that competitor was responsbile for publication of the article in the first place). Competitor moves to dismiss,
Defamation claim upheld on a motion to dismiss. The article’s over-stating of the significance of the seizure (that the public should be suspicious of ALL of plaintiff’s product as a result of one seizure), strips away fair-reporting and truthfulness defenses.
Here’s the interesting part of the decision: The Lanham Act claim was dismissed because the competitor’s name doesn’t appear in connection with the article and therefore doesn’t propose a commercial transaction with competitor, even if the competitor paid the publication to run the article. Even competitor’s email (identifying competitor and inviting discussion) doesn’t propose a commercial transaction. No commercial speech.
So the lesson is: your client’s should pay publications to run articles that slag the competition, just don’t mention client and just steer clear of defamation.
Decision Bedessee Beharry

Jay Z owns in part the 40/40 nightclubs in NY, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. Boston Red Sox (Sock?) David Ortiz has allegedly patronized the clubs and opened up a club by that name in the Dominican Republic. The Name LLC, the owner of 40/40 mark, has sued Ortiz in the DR and is now suing in the SDNY, for infringement arising from the website operated by the DR club.
Jurisdictional issues here bring to mind that old chestnut, Bensusan Restarant v King, 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir 1997) (the BLUE NOTE case).
If you are a DR trademark lawyer, please help us out on the DR end of the story: does The Name LLC have DR trademark protection? If not, can a famous mark enjoin use in the DR? As an alternative to fame, can a theory be based on bad faith (namely Ortiz’ alleged knowledge of the US club)?
Complaint 4040 Ortiz

WIPO to Provide Dispute Resolution Services for TV Show Format Industry:

WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO Center) and the Format Recognition and Protection Association (FRAPA) are to join forces later this month in providing alternative dispute resolution services to address problems of format plagiarism or the unauthorized copying of television (TV) formats, such as those used for game, reality or talent shows and sitcoms. Programs using these formats are often remade in different markets using local parties.

I’m inclined towards the belief that genericide happens far less frequently than is believed (aspirin, escalator, zipper, yo-yo , thermos (with an asterisk) and very few others). Today’s NY Times ran an obituary of the inventor of the trampoline which makes the claim that George Nissen, added an ‘e’ to the Spanish word for diving board, trampolin, and registered the word as a trademark. Several other sources on the Internet repeat this.
I can find trademarks filed by Nissen and his company on TESS, but I can’t find a cancelled trademark for TRAMPOLINE covering ‘backyard tumblers’ owned by anyone. If you have info on the genericide of TRAMPOLINE, please share.

Geo Targeting is the method of determining the location of a website visitor and delivering different content to that visitor based on that location. Today I saw an ad the headline of which was “Housewife From [location of my ISP] Loses 47 Pounds Drinking Acai Berry Juice!” and the copy of which referred to ‘Jane Doe From [my location] . . ‘ If Jane Doe doesn’t live in my town, then that is a literally false statement. 43(a)? Is it material? I don’t know, but why do they rig the ad this way?

Assume Lockheed owns an incontestable registration for SKUNKWORKS. Lockheed sends cease and desist letter to registry alleging that SKUNKWORKS.COM is being used to infringe its trademark. Registry refuses to de-activate site. Lockheed sues in 2d Circuit and not 9th, so don’t discuss Lockheed v NSI (the SKUNKWORKS case).