CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    188 The Embarcadero,
    Suite 800
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

« Supreme Court sets arbitration case for oral argument: Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno | Main | U.S. Supreme Court hands down CAFA opinion: The Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles »

Monday, March 18, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e2017ee973e7bb970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Unfair-competition suit reinstated":

Comments

Elliot Silverman

The federal courts have taken a different approach to this issue. Anza v. ideal Supply Co., 547 U.S. 451 (2006); Sybersound Records v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008).

The Higbee approach raises all sorts of questions-- if there are hundreds of competitors in an industry, and one of them is cutting its prices because it's not complying with some statute, does every other competitor have standing?

Kimberly A. Kralowec

The cases you cite are inapposite. Anza was not a UCL case, and Sybersound didn't address any of the issues raised in Higbee.

For more on Sybersound, see my original post on the opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2014 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2014
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.


  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad