U s contextual advertising law
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 32

U.S. Contextual Advertising Law PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 118 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

1. U.S. Contextual Advertising Law. Fordham University School of Law Fourteenth Annual International Intellectual Property Law and Policy Conference April 21, 2006. Prof. Barton Beebe Cardozo Law School www.bartonbeebe.com. Presentation Outline.

Download Presentation

U.S. Contextual Advertising Law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


U s contextual advertising law

1


U s contextual advertising law

U.S. Contextual Advertising Law

Fordham University School of Law

Fourteenth Annual International Intellectual Property Law and Policy Conference

April 21, 2006

Prof. Barton Beebe

Cardozo Law School

www.bartonbeebe.com


Presentation outline

Presentation Outline

I.The Technology of Contextual Advertising

II.The Precedents

III.The Current Case Law


Doctrinal questions

Doctrinal Questions

I.“Use in commerce”?

Is the defendant making a “use in commerce” of the plaintiff’s trademark “in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising of goods or services”? 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)(a) Does “use in commerce” mean “trademark use”?

II.Consumer Confusion?

Even if it is a “use in commerce,” is this use likely to confuse consumers as to source?

III.Fair Use?

Even if the “use in commerce” is likely to confuse consumers as to source, is it nevertheless a fair use?


General observations

General Observations

I.Consumer-Use v. Machine-Use

A law designed to address consumer perception must now evaluate consumer perception as mediated by machine perception.

II.The Circularity of Trademark Exclusive Rights

III.The Importance of Consumer Confusion

The “use in commerce” debate is a distraction. The issue should turn on consumer confusion. See, e.g., Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005)


I the technology

I.The Technology


I the technology a pop up advertising

I.The TechnologyA. Pop-Up Advertising


I the technology b keyword advertising

I.The TechnologyB. Keyword Advertising


I the technology b keyword advertising1

I.The TechnologyB. Keyword Advertising


I the technology b keyword advertising2

I.The TechnologyB. Keyword Advertising


I the technology b keyword advertising3

I.The TechnologyB. Keyword Advertising


I the technology b keyword advertising4

I.The TechnologyB. Keyword Advertising


Ii the precedents

II.The Precedents


Ii the precedents a the phone number cases

II.The PrecedentsA.The Phone Number Cases

  • Holiday Inns, Inc. v. 800 Reservation, Inc., 86 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 1996)

    • Plaintiff: 1-800-HOLIDAY, 1-800-465-4329

    • Defendant: 1-800-405-4329

  • DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bloom, 315 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2003)

    • Defendant: 1-800-637-2333, one alpha-numeric translation of which is 1-800-MERCEDES


Ii the precedents b the early cybersquatting cases

II.The PrecedentsB.The Early Cybersquatting Cases

  • Intermatic, Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F.Supp. 1227 (N.D.Ill. 1996) (intermatic.com)

  • Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 945 F. Supp. 1296 (C.D. Cal. 1996), aff’d, 141 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1998) (panavision.com)

  • But see Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999) (avery.net and dennison.net), and Ford Motor Co. v. Great Domains.com, Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 635 (E.D. Mich. 2002)


Ii the precedents c the gripe site and related cases

II.The PrecedentsC.The Gripe Site and Related Cases

  • The meaning of “services” in “in connection with goods or services” in the Lanham Act

    • Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 1997 WL 133313 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir.)

    • PETA v. Doughney, 113 F.Supp.2d 915 (E.D. Va. 2000), aff’d, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001)


Ii the precedents c the gripe site and related cases1

II.The PrecedentsC.The Gripe Site and Related Cases

  • Links to commercial sites

    • Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 159 F.3d 1351 (3d Cir. 1998)

    • PETA v. Doughney

    • But see Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29 F.Supp.2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Voice-Tel Enters., Inc. v. JOBA, Inc. 258 F.Supp.2d 1353 (N.D.Ga. 2003); Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005)


Ii the precedents c the gripe site and related cases2

II.The PrecedentsC.The Gripe Site and Related Cases

  • The use “in connection with” plaintiff’s goods/services line of reasoning

    • Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci

    • E.&J. Gallo Winery v. Spider Webs Ltd., 286 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2002); Faegre & Benson, LLP v. Purdy, 2004 WL 167570 (D.Minn. 2004)

    • But see Bosley; Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2002); Ford Motor Co. v. 2600 Enters., 177 F.Supp. 2d 661 (E.D.Mich. 2001)


Ii the precedents d the metatag cases

II.The PrecedentsD.The Metatag Cases

  • Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)

  • Fair use / intent analyses:

    • Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002)

    • Bihari v. Gross, 119 F.Supp.2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

    • Horphag Research Ltd. V. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003)


Ii the precedents e post domain name use

II.The PrecedentsE.“Post-Domain Name” Use

  • Interactive Products Corp. v. A2Z Mobile Office Solutions, Inc., 326 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2003)

    http://www.a2zsolutions.com/desks/floor/laptraveler/dkfl-lt.htm


Iii the current case law

III.The Current Case Law


Iii the current case law a the u s pop up advertising cases

III.The Current Case LawA.The U.S. Pop-Up Advertising Cases

  • U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc., 279 F.Supp.2d 273 (E.D.Va. 2003) (“pure machine-linking function” not “use”)

  • Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.Com, Inc., 293 F.Supp.2d 734 (E.D.Mich. 2003) (no use)

  • 1-800-Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, 309 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (yes use), rev’d, 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005) (no use)


Iii the current case law a the u s pop up advertising cases1

III.The Current Case LawA.The U.S. Pop-Up Advertising Cases

  • 1-800-Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005)

    “At the outset, we note that WhenU does not ‘use’ 1-800's trademark in the manner ordinarily at issue in an infringement claim: it does not ‘place’ 1-800 trademarks on any goods or services in order to pass them off as emanating from or authorized by 1-800. The fact is that WhenU does not reproduce or display 1-800's trademarks at all, nor does it cause the trademarks to be displayed to a C-user.”

    “A company's internal utilization of a trademark in a way that does not communicate it to the public is analogous to a individual's private thoughts about a trademark. Such conduct simply does not violate the Lanham Act, which is concerned with the use of trademarks in connection with the sale of goods or services in a manner likely to lead to consumer confusion as to the source of such goods or services.”


Iii the current case law a the u s pop up advertising cases2

III.The Current Case LawA.The U.S. Pop-Up Advertising Cases

  • 1-800-Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005)

    • Geico v. Google distinguished because WhenU allows clients to purchase rights only to a product category, not to specific keywords.

    • Pop-ups analogized to product placement on drug store shelves

    • Metatag cases distinguished because no diversion of customers


Iii the current case law b the keyword advertising cases

III.The Current Case LawB.The Keyword Advertising Cases

  • Search Engine as Defendant:

    • Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Netscape Communi-cations Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004)

    • Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc., 330 F.Supp.2d 700 (E.D.Va. 2004)

    • Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc., 2005 WL 1903128 (E.D.Va. 2005)

    • Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2005 WL 832398 (N.D.Cal. 2005)


Iii the current case law b the keyword advertising cases1

III.The Current Case LawB.The Keyword Advertising Cases

  • Advertiser as Defendant:

    • Bayer Corp. v. Custom School Frames, LLC, 259 F.Supp.2d 503 (E.D.La. 2003); Bayer HealthCare LLC v. Nagrom, Inc., 2004 WL 2216491 (D.Kan. 2004) (use not addressed)

    • Edina Realty, Inc. v. TheMLSonline.com, 2006 WL 737064 (D.Minn. Mar. 20, 2006) (use found, citing Brookfield)

    • Merck & Co. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, 2006 WL 800756 (SDNY Mar. 30, 2006) (use not found)


Iv good commentary

IV. Good Commentary

  • Margreth Barrett, Internet Trademark Suits and the Demise of “Trademark Use,” 39 U.C. Davis. L. Rev. 371 (2006)

  • Eric Goldman, Deregulating Relevancy in Internet Trademark Law, 54 Emory L.J. 507 (2005)

  • Uli Widmaier, Use, Liability, and the Structure of Trademark Law, 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 603 (2004)


Iii the current case law a the u s pop up advertising cases3

III.The Current Case LawA.The U.S. Pop-Up Advertising Cases

  • 1-800-Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, 309 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (yes use)

    “Defendants here use Plaintiff's mark in two ways. First, in causing pop-up advertisements for Defendant Vision Direct to appear when SaveNow users have specifically attempted to access Plaintiff's website-on which Plaintiff's trademark appears-Defendants are displaying Plaintiff's mark ‘in the ··· advertising of’ Defendant Vision Direct's services. . . .”

    “Second, Defendant WhenU.com includes Plaintiff's URL, <www.1800contacts.com>, in the proprietary WhenU.com directory of terms that triggers pop-up advertisements on SaveNow users' computers. (Tr. at 134.) In so doing, Defendant WhenU.com “uses” Plaintiff's mark, by including a version of Plaintiff's 1-800 CONTACTS mark, to advertise and publicize companies that are in direct competition with Plaintiff.”


Presentation outline1

Presentation Outline

I.The Technology

A.Pop-Up Advertising

B.Keyword Advertising

II.The Precedents

A.The Telephone Number Cases

B.The Early Cybersquatting Cases

C.The Gripe Site and Related Cases

D.The Metatag Cases

III.The Current Case Law

A.The U.S. Pop-Up Advertising Cases

B.The U.S. Keyword Advertising Cases


  • Login