Дата канвертавання 20.04.2016 Памер 11.54 Kb.
Unfair Competition Law
Trademark policy and objectives
Minimize consumer search costs
Protect against free-riding on competitor’s trademarks
Internet advertising raises new issues
Courts analyzing keyword search buys have taken conflicting approaches to “Use in Commerce”
Statutory Basis for Use in Commerce
Policy reasons for use requirement (First Amendment concerns)
Cases Involving Keyword Search Buys
Use in commerce (Geico, JRCigar, Edina Realty)
No use in commerce (Rescuecom & Merck)
Undecided if use in commerce (American Blind)
How Cases Involving Keyword Search Buys Align With Prior Internet Advertising Cases
Banner Ad (Playboy Enterprises)
Pop-Up Ad (1800 Contacts)
Metatags (Brookfield Communications)
Implications of the JRCigar and Rescuecom Approach to Use in Commerce
The problem with the JRCigar approach
Distorts traditional requirement for use in commerce of the trademark in connection with sale or advertising of goods.
Improperly extends scope of trademark protection: free speech implications
The problem with the Rescuecom approach
Potential for abuse and consumer confusion because insufficient trademark regulation
Incomplete trademark doctrine for internet advertising
Illustration of the problem:
Internet Search Engines are not required to clearly label sponsored links (some purposely mixed sponsored and unsponsored results)
Owner of keyword trademark purchases a sponsored link
Possible Solution to the Conflicting Approaches to Use in Commerce for Keyword Search Buys.
The Solution: keyword search buys of trademarks constitute use in commerce when the sponsored link provides for the sale or advertisement of goods or services.
The reason that sponsored links can satisfy the requirement for use in commerce of the trademark in connection with sale or advertising of goods.
Use in Commerce Does Not Equal Trademark Infringement
Still must satisfy likelihood of confusion requirement
Defenses to trademark infringement: fair use, nominative use, etc.
Benefits of this approach:
Helps eliminate risk of abuse and consumer confusion
More complete trademark doctrine
Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc., 2005 WL 1903128 (E.D.Va.)
Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc., 330 F.Supp.2d 700 (E.D.Va. 2004)
800-JR Cigar, Inc. v. Goto.com, Inc., 437 F.Supp.2d 273 (D.N.J. 2006)
Edina Realty, Inc. v. Themlsonline.com, 2006 WL 737064 (D.Minn.)
Edina Realty, Inc. v. Themlsonline.com, 2006 WL 1314303 (D.Minn.)
Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2005 WL 832398 (N.D.Cal.)
Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9 th Cir. 1999)
Playboy Enter., Inc. v. ., 354 F.3d 1020 (9 Netscape Communications Corp th Cir. 2004)
Rescue Corp. v. Google, Inc., 2006 WL 2811711 (N.D.N.Y.)
Merck & Co. Inc. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc., 431 F.Supp.2d 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
Merck & Co. Inc. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc., 425 F.Supp.2d 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
1-800 ., 414 F.3d 400 (2 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc nd Cir. 2005)
Leanne Stendell, Trademarks—Internet Pop-up Advertisement Triggered by Competitor’s Trademarks Is Not Infringing “Use in Commerce” of the Marks, 58 SMU L.Rev. 215
Sarah J. Givan, Using Trademarks as Location Tools on the Internet: Use in Commerce?, 2005 UCLA J. L. & Tech. 4
Alicia Gamez, WHENU.com & Google Inc.: Parsing Trademark’s Use Requirement, 21 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 403
Margreth Barret, Internet Trademark Suits and the Demise of “Trademark Use,” 39 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 371.
Uli Widmaier, Use, Liability, and the Structure of Trademark Law, Hofsta Law Review, vol. 33, pg 603
Patrick Frye, “An Internet Advertising Service Can Constitute “Use in Commerce,” 22 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 89
Charles McCarthy, Metatags and the Sale of Keywords in Search Engine Advertising: Confusing Consumer Confusion with Choice, 9 Intell. Prop. L. Bull. 137.
Lisa A. Nester, Keywords, Trademarks, and the Gray Market: Why The Use is Not Fair, 7 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 235.
Urs Gasser, Regulating Search Engines: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead, 8 Yale J.L. & Tech. 201
Neel Chatterjee and Connie E. Merriett, U-Haul International, Inc. v. Whenu.com, Inc. Wells Fargo & Co. v. Whenu.com, Inc. and 1-800 Contacts Inc. v. Whenu.com, Inc.: Pop-up Advertising as ‘Use in Commerce’; Under the Lanham Act: A Case Analysis, 20 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 1113
Charles R. Macedo and Holly Pekowsky, Apop-Ups and “Use of” A Protected Trademark in Light of 1-800 Contacts, 23-SUM Comm. Law. 28
Deborah F. Buckman, 197 A.L.R. Fed. 17.
Neil Smith, 1 Internet Law and Practice § 13:7