Keyword advertising raises interesting questions beyond the run-of-the-mill trademark infringement and unfair competition issues typically discussed. For instance, if a sponsored ad can be clicked in three separate countries, can the Courts of each of those countries take jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute? The Court of Justice of the European Union has given a strange answer to this question, which you’ll probably want to know about if you, or your competitors, do any business online. Continue reading »
Further to my copyright post here, I’ve set out below a list of recent trade mark articles and quotes, with links where possible. A list of my recent copyright publications is here, and there’s a full list of all publications here.
- “National Use Neither Proves Nor Precludes Finding of Genuine Use of a Community Trade Mark,” Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP Client Advisory, July 2012.
- “Onel Opinion Sparks Debate On CTM Genuine Use,” quoted, Managing IP, July 2012. Continue reading »
Brand owners are likely to be unimpressed by Google’s latest update to its AdWords program, which gives purchasers of third party trademarks increased prominence for their ads. The change, which is already in operation, means “organic” search results will be pushed further out of view by sponsored ads, whose format now looks like some categories of organic results. Continue reading »
Women’s Wear Daily today reports on a matter that was covered on this blawg last August (Madonna’s Macy’s Material Met By Mark Lawsuit), namely an attempt by an LA company to put a stop to Madonna and Macy’s ‘Material Girl’ clothing line. The Plaintiff, L.A. Triumph, Inc, argues that it has the prior rights to the “MATERIAL GIRL” mark, though it appears that these rights are unregistered and therefore limited to the extent of its reputation. Continue reading »
A District Court in New York has become the latest to find that using a competitor’s trademark in Google’s AdWords program can be trademark infringement. District Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf found that the Defendants’ selection of “PILLOW PETS” and similar marks as a trigger for Google Ads is likely an infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks “MY PILLOW PETS” and “IT’S A PILLOW, IT’S A PET”, and granted Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The case is CJ Products LLC v. Snuggly Plushez LLC, 11-CV-0715 (RRM)(SMG), NYLJ 1202512398696, at *1 (EDNY, Decided August 22, 2011). Continue reading »
Fashion designers, as a class, should gain only limited IP protection, according to Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York. Giving judgment in Christian Louboutin SA et al v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc et al., 1:11-cv-2381 (NYSD August 10, 2011), Judge Marrero acknowledged that the world famous Louboutin house has acquired extensive reputation and goodwill in their red soles – to the point that said soles have acquired a secondary meaning of designating Louboutin footwear only – yet ruled that this meant nothing because their goods are items of fashion.
The decision is curious since Judge Marrero relies, at least in part, on a comparison between apples and oranges. Continue reading »
Microsoft has recently tested a new system of advertising whereby ads are not placed on top of the organic search results, nor to the side, nor on a colored background, but actually within the list of organic results. Is this a smart move? Will Microsoft find itself on the end of a (meritorious) lawsuit for trademark infringement or unfair competition? Probably not. Continue reading »
While the Wall Street Journal (initially, at any rate) declared outright victory for Google’s AdWords service after the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ” or “CJEU”) ruled that the sale of keywords to advertisers did not constitute “use” of those keywords within the meaning of the Trade Marks Directive (89/104/EEC), most of us were more cautious from the outset.
For my own part, I wrote in the World Trademark Review that Continue reading »
If I told you that Robert Burck had had a haircut, you probably wouldn’t know what I was talking about. But if I told you that while in Times Square last week I noticed that the Naked Cowboy is back performing with a new look, you might even remember the lawsuit he filed last year against Sandra Brodsky, which I commented on here (case 1:10-cv-05539-VM).
Briefly, Burck sued Brodsky for trademark infringement over her use of the Naked Cowgirl label; and her counterclaims included an allegation that he had obtained some of his trademark registrations fraudulently. Continue reading »
In his January 25, 2011 decision in the Central District of California, District Court Judge George H. King held that the targeted use of a third party’s trademark in a Google AdWord advertising campaign can constitute trademark infringement and can also leave advertisers open to an award of enhanced damages, attorneys fees and costs. (Binder v. Disability Group, Inc., Case no. cv 07-2760-GHK)
The holding is a warning to advertisers that Google’s (current) placement and color of ads is insufficient by itself to avoid trademark infringement. Accordingly, care must be taken to ensure that such ads are carefully worded, particularly since it appears that the infringed trademark in Binder was not even in the text of the offending ads.
In relation to the trademark infringement claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), the Court noted:
“Moreover, ‘[i]n the context of the Web in particular, the three most important Sleekcraft factors [the 'Internet trilogy'] are (1) the similarity of the marks, (2) the relatedness of the goods or services, and (3) the simultaneous use of the Web as amarketing channel.’ GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9thCir.2000).”
The Court found a “strong” likelihood of confusion due to the strength of Plaintiff’s mark, identity of the marks, identity of services and identity of commercial channels (i.e. the Internet). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s registered marks were found to have been infringed by the Defendants’ AdWords ads. There was also evidence of actual confusion among users viewing Google’s search results (which the Court described as the result of the Defendants’ “deception”), though the Court notes that evidence of actual confusion was not necessary.
The Court also held that the Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s trademarks as part of their AdWords campaign meant they were also liable for false advertising under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), saying:
“Defendants used Plaintiff’s mark in their advertising campaign through Google to market their business in a manner that was likely to confuse potential clients and that decieved potential clients into thinking they were being led to Plaintiff’s website”. [Emphasis added.]
The indication is that the Defendants’ wrongful act was the very leading of users to their website, and was not in any way dependent on what appeared on said website.
The Court held that the Defendants’ intentional use of their competitor’s registered marks amounted to willful misconduct and a “deliberate intent to deceive”. Accordingly, the Court awarded enhanced damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) in the amount of double the Plaintiff’s lost profits.
Furthermore, the Court held that this type of trademark infringement is the sort of “exceptional” infringement referred to in the Lanham Act, and awarded the Plaintiff additional orders of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court also found one of the Defendants’ officers personally liable since he had “directed, authorized or participated in” the infringement. In a small victory for the Defendants, the Court declined Plaintiff’s claim for prospective corrective advertising costs, citing the passage of time (the judgment came a little over four years after the last infringement) and a lack of specificity in Plaintiff’s pleadings. So make sure to start claims sooner rather than later.
Finally, the Court left the door open for a future litigant to argue that the failure of a mark owner to preemptively register their mark with Google (to prevent its selection as an AdWord) meant the owner has failed to mitigate its losses. The argument failed in Binder partly because the evidence presented by the Defendant was vague, but the Court didn’t completely rule out the possibility that it could apply on different evidence (though it seems unlikely).
The full decision can be read below.
Binder v. Disability Group