Podcast appearances and mentions of rebecca tushnet

The stem cell industry is growing rapidly but faces heightened regulatory scrutiny, particularly regarding marketing practices. Recent events highlight this issue: Rebecca Tushnet's blog on state "Little FTC Acts" emphasizes their enforcement power against deceptive marketing, and the guilty plea of a stem cell product manufacturer's CEO for fraud underscores the stakes involved. Key Considerations for M&A Buyers:1. Legal Landscape: Understanding state and federal regulations is crucial to avoid penalties.2. Marketing Due Diligence:   - Review Materials: Scrutinize marketing content for truthful claims.   - Compliance Assessment: Ensure alignment with legal standards.   - Investigate Regulatory History: Look into past regulatory actions for potential liabilities.   - Evaluate Testimonials: Verify authenticity and compliance with FTC guidelines. Role of Life Science Attorneys:- Risk Mitigation: Guide clients on due diligence and indemnification clauses.- Regulatory Navigation: Educate clients on compliance and coordinate audits.- Post-Acquisition Support: Develop compliance programs to address deficiencies.- Litigation Preparedness: Prepare clients for regulatory inquiries and potential lawsuits.Why Partner with Kulkarni Law Firm:The Kulkarni Law Firm specializes in navigating M&A legal complexities in the life sciences sector, offering expertise in regulatory compliance, comprehensive due diligence, tailored compliance solutions, and robust litigation defense.In conclusion, while the stem cell industry offers significant opportunities, it also poses substantial risks. M&A buyers must conduct thorough evaluations to avoid legal liabilities, making partnership with experienced life science attorneys essential. Reach out to the Kulkarni Law Firm today to safeguard your investments.Support the show

Rebecca Tushnet discusses the potential explores the implications of misleading advertisements, particularly concerning pregnancy clinics. Even true statements can be disparaging if they mislead consumers. Cases like the California lawsuit questioning the use of "Dr." titles. Tushnet examines when products like milk can be labeled as such and scrutinizes claims like "clinically proven" by SlimFast. She also addresses dark patterns, deceptive tactics affecting user behaviour, and the FTC's enforcement of these laws. Additionally, she contrasts the U.S. approach to advertising and good faith with European standards, highlighting challenges like drug subscription cancellations.Support the show

Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard Law, joins Radio Boston to discuss the engagement ring case before the Supreme Judicial Court.

Scientific Sense ® by Gill Eapen: Prof. Rebecca Tushnet is a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Her work currently focuses on copyright, trademark and false advertising law. She is also an expert on the law of engagement rings. Please subscribe to this channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/ScientificSense?sub_confirmation=1 --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scientificsense/support

In this podcast, we discuss the following: Recent updates from the courts in class action lawsuits. Difference between equity and law. Demerging or diverging equity and law. Dictionaries used by courts to interpret contracts. Update on Johnson and Johnson baby powder case (Suing plaintiff's witnesses for defamation and false advertising) Experts need to be cautious to avoid false advertising allegations against them. Update on Maybelline 24-hour make-up case. (24-hour sunscreen)  Rebecca Tushnet is our guest. She is a Harvard Law School professor specializing in copyright, trademark, and advertising law. Let's get into it.

President Biden's new executive order on artificial intelligence has a little bit of everything for everyone concerned about A.I. Casey takes us inside the White House as the order was signed.Then, Rebecca Tushnet, a copyright law expert, walks us through the latest developments in a lawsuit against the creators of A.I.-image generation tools. She explains why artists may have trouble making the case that these tools infringe on their copyrights.And finally, it's time again for HatGPT. We get a taste of the tech headlines you may have missed from the week.Today's guest:Rebecca Tushnet, professor of law at Harvard Law School.Additional reading:Casey's debrief on his trip to the White House.Kevin's breakdown of the executive order.A judge found many of the claims in a lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney and DeviantArt to be “defective.” 

My guests this week are my UVA Law colleagues, Naomi Cahn and Julia Mahoney. We're discussing their recent article in The Conversation, “Who Keeps The Wedding Ring After A Breakup?” We also discuss work by Margaret Brinig, Rebecca Tushnet, and Viviana Zelizer. Finally, we demonstrate that I utterly fail to understand engagement ring pricing.  Naomi Cahn is the Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia and is an expert in family law, trusts and estates, feminist jurisprudence, reproductive technology, and aging and the law. She is the co-director of UVA Law's Family Law Center. Julia Mahoney is the John S. Battle Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, where she teaches courses in property and constitutional law, as well as a seminar, “Feminism and the Free Market.” Her scholarship includes works on altruism and the provision of biomedical technologies. Naomi Cahn and Julia D. Mahoney, Who keeps the engagement ring after a breakup? 2 law professors explain why you might want a prenup for your diamond, The Conversation, March 22, 2023Julia Mahoney Bio, University of VirginiaNaomi Cahn Bio, University of VirginiaCourse description, Feminism and the Free MarketMargaret F. Brinig, Rings and Promises, 6 J.L. Econ & Org. 203 (1990). Tushnet, Rebecca. "Rules of engagement." Yale LJ 107 (1997): 2583.Viviana A. Zelizer, The Purchase of Intimacy, Princeton University Press (2007)

In Part 2 of Traceroute's season finale, we look at the fallout of the copyright infringement decision against The Internet Archive. If information eventually becomes commoditized, will we find someone to be a fair and responsible arbiter of history?With nothing less than the future of our digitized history at stake, the final episode of Season 2 of Traceroute explores the threats and challenges the Internet Archive faces in the wake of its copyright infringement case. We are joined by Rebecca Tushnet, the Harvard Law professor who defended the Archive in the case, to discuss the potential fallout of the court's ruling: are we moving towards a society where information is owned by an elite few and “rented out” at a price? If so, do we risk manipulation of that information for the sake of profit? Or will we find among our archivists, preservationists, librarians, and even activists a person who can be responsible enough to be dubbed “The Arbiter of History?” Additional ResourcesConnect with Grace Andrews: LinkedIn or Twitter.Connect with Amy Tobey on Twitter.Connect with Fen Aldrich on Twitter.Connect with John Taylor on LinkedIn.Connect with Rebecca Tushnet on Twitter.Connect with the NEDCC.Visit Origins.dev for more information.Traceroute is a podcast from Equinix, and is a production of Stories Bureau. This episode was produced by John Taylor, with help from Tim Balint and Cat Bagsic. It was edited by Joshua Ramsey and mixed by Jeremy Tuttle, with additional editing and sound design by Mathr de Leon. Our theme song was composed by Ty Gibbons.

This podcast will discuss the use of property. Derivative work from the following original:Stephen Clowney, James Grimmelmann, Michael Grynberg, Jeremy Sheff, and Rebecca Tushnet, Open Source Property. The casebook is licensed Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International. This derivative work is licensed the same as the original.

This podcast will discuss the foundations of property law. Derivative work from the following original:Stephen Clowney, James Grimmelmann, Michael Grynberg, Jeremy Sheff, and Rebecca Tushnet, Open Source Property. The casebook is licensed Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International. This derivative work is licensed the same as the original.

This podcast will discuss possession of property. Derivative work from the following original:Stephen Clowney, James Grimmelmann, Michael Grynberg, Jeremy Sheff, and Rebecca Tushnet, Open Source Property. The casebook is licensed Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International. This derivative work is licensed the same as the original.

This podcast will discuss interests in property. Derivative work from the following original:Stephen Clowney, James Grimmelmann, Michael Grynberg, Jeremy Sheff, and Rebecca Tushnet, Open Source Property. The casebook is licensed Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International. This derivative work is licensed the same as the original.

This podcast will discuss transfers of property. Derivative work from the following original:Stephen Clowney, James Grimmelmann, Michael Grynberg, Jeremy Sheff, and Rebecca Tushnet, Open Source Property. The casebook is licensed Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International. This derivative work is licensed the same as the original.

We are joined by Harvard Law professor Rebecca Tushnet on This Week in Legal Blogging. She sits down with Bob Ambrogi to discuss how blogging keeps her up-to-date and organized on the law as well as the differences between academic writing and blogging. 

Aside from the COVID-19 pandemic and its gripping effects, 2020 will most likely be remembered for the series of police brutalities leading to the deaths of several African Americans in the United States and a subsequent wave of protests all over the world. These movements for racial justice led to a surge in initiatives in favor of black, indigenous, and people of color, or BIPOC, both to challenge certain situations or status quo and to celebrate cultures and diversity, thereby moving the boundaries of what is considered by most as no longer acceptable.Unsurprisingly, intellectual property (IP), as the most visible result of individuals' and companies' expression and communication, has being directly impacted. Several brands were publicly challenged for using racial stereotypes. How do these social dynamics impact trademark owners? What does IP law tell us about offensive trademarks? Professor Rebecca Tushnet, the inaugural Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, is the guest of our new episode of Brand&New. Her research and teaching focuses on copyright, trademark, advertising, and First Amendment law. After clerking at the United States Supreme Court, she practiced IP law at Debevoise and Plimpton before turning to academia. Her blog at tushnet.blogspot.com has been on the American Bar Association 100 list of top legal blogs for several years. Every two weeks, on Tuesday, Brand & New gives the floor to inspiring individuals, with a 360-degree vision, to help brand owners, intellectual property lawyers, and marketing and finance professionals (and beyond!) stay curious and agile in an ever-evolving business environment. Brand & New is a production of the International Trademark AssociationHosted by Audrey Dauvet - Contribution of M. Halle & S. Lagedamond - Music by JD BeatsFOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT INTA.ORGTo go further:About Rebecca Tushnet: https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/11412/Tushnet/ Also of interest: - Rebecca Tushnet’s blog (https://tushnet.blogspot.com)-Harvard Business Review: “When a Brand Stands up for Racial Justice, Do People Buy It?(https://hbr.org/2020/07/when-a-brand-stands-up-for-racial-justice-do-people-buy-it)- United States Supreme Court: Matal v. Tam (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf)- INTA Bulletin: “International Amicus Committee Update: INTA Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court Case on Immoral or Scandalous Marks” (https://www.inta.org/international-amicus-committee-update-inta-files-amicus-brief-in-u-s-supreme-court-case-on-immoral-or-scandalous-marks/)- International Trademark Association’s 2020 Annual Meeting & Leadership Meeting: 12 educational tracks, including sessions entitled “Brand Authenticity: Reacting to Social Movements Quickly and Appropriately” (https://www.inta.org/events/2020-annual-meeting-leadership-meeting/)-The National Law Review: “Trademark Trolls—A Danger to Avoid with a Re-Brand” (https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trad

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments by teleconference, allowing the public to listen in, in real time, for the first time in history. On Monday, the Court heard United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com—a case about whether Booking.com can trademark its name. Immediately following the argument, host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by three experts who filed briefs on different sides of the case—Corynne McSherry of Electronic Frontier Foundation, professor Rebecca Tushnet of Harvard Law School, and Margaret Duncan of Loyola University Chicago School of Law—to recap the argument, explain the case, and reflect on a historic moment for the Court. The National Constitution Center collaborated with C-SPAN to broadcast this conversation live. The National Constitution Center recapped all of the arguments heard this past week live on C-SPAN. You can watch the rest of those recaps on our YouTube channel at YouTube.com/constitutioncenter. The Supreme Court will hear additional arguments next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, starting at 10 a.m. EDT, and then Jeff will be back on C-SPAN to recap them with some of the leading experts involved in the cases. So please tune in! Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments by teleconference, allowing the public to listen in, in real time, for the first time in history. On Monday, the Court heard United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com—a case about whether Booking.com can trademark its name. Immediately following the argument, host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by three experts who filed briefs on different sides of the case—Corynne McSherry of Electronic Frontier Foundation, professor Rebecca Tushnet of Harvard Law School, and Margaret Duncan of Loyola University Chicago School of Law—to recap the argument, explain the case, and reflect on a historic moment for the Court. The National Constitution Center collaborated with C-SPAN to broadcast this conversation live. The National Constitution Center recapped all of the arguments heard this past week live on C-SPAN. You can watch the rest of those recaps on our YouTube channel at YouTube.com/constitutioncenter. The Supreme Court will hear additional arguments next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, starting at 10 a.m. EDT, and then Jeff will be back on C-SPAN to recap them with some of the leading experts involved in the cases. So please tune in! Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Rebecca talks to us about her knitting life! She also talks about copyright, trademark, and the role of law in creativity. Here's more on Rebecca: https://www.justwannaquilt.com/rebecca-tushnet

Rebecca talks to us about her knitting life! She also talks about copyright, trademark, and the role of law in creativity. Here's more on Rebecca: https://www.justwannaquilt.com/rebecca-tushnet

Hannah speaks with Anne Gilson LaLonde. Anne is the author of the trademark treatise Gilson on Trademarks. She took over authorship of the book from her father, Jerome Gilson, in 2006. Anne has also written articles on a variety of trademark-related topics, many co-authored with her father. You can find some of the materials referenced during our interview below: Anne’s website http://www.annegilsonlalonde.com/ Anne’s Twitter account https://twitter.com/GilsonOnTMs Trademark Reporter article “Adios! To the Irreparable Harm Presumption in Trademark Law” by Anne Gilson LaLonde and Jerome Gilson https://www.inta.org/TMR/Documents/Volume%20107/Issue%20No.%205/vol107_no5_a1_gilson_lalonde.pdf Resolution of the INTA Board of Directors, “Amendment of the Lanham Act to Include a Rebuttable Presumption of Irreparable Harm” https://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Pages/Amendment%20of%20the%20Lanham%20Act%20to%20Include%20a%20Rebuttable%20Presumption%20of%20Irreparable%20Harm.aspx Office of Law Revision Counsel codification of Lanham Act http://uscode.house.gov/codification/t35/index.html Erik Brunetti Oral Arguments http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/search/audio.html?title=In+Re+Erik+Brunetti&field_case_number_value=15-1109&field_date_value2%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=2017-08-29 ADLON surname decision from the TTAB http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-85831682-EXA-36.pdf National Novel Writing Month https://nanowrimo.org/ John Welch’s TTABlog http://thettablog.blogspot.com/ Ron Coleman’s Likelihood of Confusion Blog http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/ The IPKat Blog http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/ Rebecca Tushnet’s 43(B)log http://tushnet.blogspot.com/ Lexology https://www.lexology.com/

The Yes Men and the Women Men Don't See

With Zahr Said, we discuss what makes creative works similar and the role of the “reader” in constructing a work’s meaning. Christian derails with a James Bond commercial. But we get back on track and talk about paintings, poems, Star Wars, textualism, and the Big Sick. This show’s links: Zahr Said’s faculty profile (https://www.law.washington.edu/directory/profile.aspx?ID=602) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1030166) Zahr Said, A Transactional Theory of the Reader in Copyright Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2902765) Joseph Miller, Hoisting Originality (http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1778&context=fac_artchop) About Louise Rosenblatt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Rosenblatt) Oral Argument 132: The Soul of Music (http://oralargument.org/132) (guest Joe Fishman) Joseph Fishman, Music as a Matter of Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2931091) Mark A. Lemley, Our Bizarre System for Proving Copyright Infringement (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1661434) Shyamkrishna Balganesh, The Normativity of Copying in Copyright Law (http://dlj.law.duke.edu/article/the-normativity-of-copying-in-copyright-law/) Laura Heymann, Reading Together and Apart: Juries, Courts, and Substantial Similarity in Copyright Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958263) Jacob Lawrence, The Studio (https://www.wikiart.org/en/jacob-lawrence/the-studio-1977) Rebecca Tushnet, Worth a Thousand Words: The Images of Copyright Law (http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/fwps_papers/148/) Adrienne Rich, Turbulence (http://wwnorton.tumblr.com/post/11358653379/turbulence-adrienne-rich) The Big Sick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Sick) Special Guest: Zahr Said.

Deborah Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and Rebecca Tushnet of Georgetown University discuss Lee v. Tam, a big First Amendment case. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Deborah Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and Rebecca Tushnet of Georgetown University discuss Lee v. Tam, a big First Amendment case. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Georgetown University, and Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western University Law School, discuss the Supreme Court case Expressions Hair Design v Schneiderman, which involves credit card interchange fees to the nation's highest court. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Karen Moscow and Bob Moon report the days top legal stories. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Georgetown University, and Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western University Law School, discuss the Supreme Court case Expressions Hair Design v Schneiderman, which involves credit card interchange fees to the nation's highest court. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Karen Moscow and Bob Moon report the days top legal stories.

Jeremy Sheff joins us to discuss a successful project to create a free and open Property Law casebook. Students of the world unite! You have only your restrictive licenses to lose. (Jeremy worked on this project with the incomparable Stephen Clowney, James Grimmelmann, Michael Grynberg, and Rebecca Tushnet.) This show’s links: Jeremy Sheff’s faculty profile (http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/bio/jeremy-sheff), website (https://jeremysheff.com), and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=589465) Open Source Property: A Free Casebook (https://opensourceproperty.org) Oral Argument 20: Twelve Billion Dollars (http://oralargument.org/20) (the one about casebooks) Special Guest: Jeremy Sheff.

A talk show on KZSU-FM, Stanford, 90.1 FM, hosted by Center for Internet & Society Resident Fellow David S. Levine. The show includes guests and focuses on the intersection of technology and society. How is our world impacted by the great technological changes taking place? Each week, a different sphere is explored. This week, David interviews Prof. Rebecca Tushnet of Georgetown Law School, discussing fansites, fair use and trademark law. For more information, please go to http://hearsayculture.com.