1 LEGAL UPDATE THIRD PARTY POP-UP ADVERTISEMENTS: U-HAUL INT L, INC. V. WHENU.COM Andrew J. Sinclair I. INTRODUCTION Pop-up advertising has been an enormous success for internet advertisers 1 and a huge annoyance to internet users. 2 Pop-up advertisements automatically open a new browser window containing an advertisement. 3 Originally, these pop-up windows were spawned solely by the web page that the user was currently visiting, however companies such as The Gator Corporation ( Gator ) and WhenU.com ( WhenU ) have developed software that spawns pop-up windows without identification of their source. 4 While some internet publishers and site owners sell and produce pop-up advertisements as part of advertising agreements, other publishers and site owners have challenged the use of the advertisements that automatically popup from hidden third-party sources. 5 There have been a number of lawsuits against these third party pop-up advertisers, but the issue of whether the use of these types of advertisements infringe on the trademark or copyright rights of J.D. candidate, Boston University School of Law, 2004; B.A., University of Santa Barbara, Brian Morrissey, Study: Pop-Ups Work, INTERNET ADVERTISING REPORT, May 28, 2003, at 2 David A. Vise, AOL Says It Will Phase Out Pop-Ups; A Victory for Users As Ad Revenue Sags, THE WASHINGTON POST, Oct. 16, 2002, at E1 (explaining that America Online plans to phase out pop-up advertisements due to user complaints). 3 Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20756, at *27-28 (E.D. Mi. Nov. 19, 2003). 4 Bob Tedeschi, E-Commerce Report; Legal Battles Pit Online Advertising Companies That Create Pop-Up Ads Against the Owners of Web Sites, N.Y. TIMES July 7, 2003, at C6 ( Rather than being displayed by the site s publisher, these ads are triggered by software that resides on a user s computer. ). 5 Id.
2 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. [Vol. 10:1 the internet publisher or site owner has yet to be clearly determined. 6 The summary judgment decision in U-Haul International, Inc. v. WhenU.com 7 addressed trademark and copyright infringement claims brought by a website owner against a third party pop-up advertiser. The court concluded that the advertiser did not infringe either the trademark or copyright of the web site owner. 8 However, other recent cases have resulted in preliminary injunctions holding that publishers are likely to prevail on trademark infringement claims. 9 II. BACKGROUND A. Pop-up Advertising Cases Numerous website publishers have brought suits against the purveyors of third party pop-up advertisements. WhenU and Gator are the two major advertising companies that have been subject to these suits. At the time of this writing, only the U-Haul case has reached a final judgment, but courts in several other cases have issued preliminary injunctions. The U-Haul decision will have strong ramifications for pending lawsuits which focus on similar facts. Prior to the U-Haul decision, the Eastern District Court of Virginia (the same court that decided U-Haul) issued a preliminary injunction against popup advertiser Gator in Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. v. Gator Corp. 10 In that case, the court enjoined Gator from [c]ausing its pop-up advertisements to be displayed on any website owned by or affiliated with the Plaintiffs until the conclusion of the trial. 11 The parties reached a settlement agreement and ceased litigation before the case went to trial. 12 Gator has settled at least one other lawsuit alleging that the use of pop-up advertisements infringes the publisher s intellectual property rights. 13 Nine other actions involving Gator and concerning the use of pop-up advertisements 6 See infra pp U-Haul Int l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 723 (E.D. Va. 2003). 8 Id. at Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932, at *104 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003), appeal docketed, No cv (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2004); Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. v. Gator Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20879, at *1 (E.D. Va. July 16, 2002). 10 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. v. Gator Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20879, at *1 (E.D. Va. July 16, 2002). 11 Id. 12 Hertz Corp. v. Gator Corp., 250 F. Supp. 421, 423 n.1 (D.N.J. 2003). 13 Id.
3 2004] THIRD PARTY POP-UP ADVERTISEMENTS remain in dispute. 14 In April, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these cases to be heard in the Northern District of Georgia. 15 That court has not yet reached its decision. Similar cases are also pending against WhenU. 16 In Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, 17 the Eastern District of Michigan denied a website publisher s motion for a preliminary injunction. 18 This post U-Haul decision relied on much of the same case law and rational as the U-Haul decision, and the court cited U-Haul to support its reasoning. 19 However, in the recent Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com 20 decision, a court granted a website publisher s motion for a preliminary injunction. 21 At the time of writing, Contacts is pending appeal in the Second Circuit. 22 B. The U-Haul Case The U-Haul case may prove very influential in determining the outcome of the pending Gator cases. However, recent decisions have produced varied outcomes under similar facts. 23 The facts and allegations in the U-Haul case are similar to those in other pending pop-up advertising litigation See In re Gator Corp. Software Trademark & Copyright Litigation, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1380 (J.P.M.L 2003). 15 Id. (transferring the pending Gator cases to the Northern District of Georgia for coordinated or consolidated proceedings). 16 Hertz Corp. 250 F. Supp. 421, (noting that there were four cases pending involving WhenU and pop-up advertising on March 13, 2003). 17 Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Mi. Nov. 19, 2003). 18 Id. at * See id. at * Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932, at * (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003), appeal docketed, No cv (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2004). 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Compare Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. v. Gator Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20879, at *1 (E.D. Va. July 16, 2002), and Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932, at *119 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003), appeal docketed, No cv (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2004) (granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff website publishers), with Wells Fargo & Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20756, at *112 (denying plaintiff website publishers motion for preliminary injunction). 24 Compare U-Haul Int l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 723 (E.D. Va. 2003), with Wells Fargo & Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20746; see Hertz Corp. v. Gator Corp., 250 F. Supp. 421, 423 n.1 (D.N.J. 2003) (noting that four cases involving WhenU.com involve similar issues to a Gator case); see also In re Gator Corp. Software Trademark & Copyright Litigation, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1380 (J.P.M.L 2003) (finding that nine pending cases involving pop-up advertising involve common questions of fact).
4 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. [Vol. 10:1 WhenU distributes free software bundled with a program called SaveNow. 25 When a user installs the free software and accepts the license agreement, the SaveNow program is also installed on that user s computer. 26 The SaveNow program creates a directory of search phrases, websites, and keyword algorithms. 27 It then monitors the user s internet browsing activity and searches the created directory for similar information. 28 When the user s activity matches an item from the SaveNow directory, the SaveNow program causes an advertisement to open in a new browser window (to pop-up ). 29 The result of this system is that when a user with the SaveNow program installed visits the U-Haul website, the SaveNow program causes a pop-up advertisement to appear. 30 Often, the advertisements that SaveNow produces are for a rival or competing product. 31 U-Haul brought several claims against WhenU for this practice. They alleged that WhenU s software infringed on Uhaul s trademarks and violated unfair competition and trademark dilution laws. 32 They also alleged that WhenU violated Uhaul s copyrights. 33 Plaintiffs in similar cases have alleged the same. 34 III. THE ANALYSIS OF U-HAUL A. Trademark Arguments U-Haul alleged that WhenU violated U-Haul s trademark and unfair competition rights by causing pop-up advertisements to appear on the user s computer screen next to the U-Haul website and logo and additionally by WhenU s use of the U-Haul mark in the software that determines which advertisements to show. 35 The court applied the five-factor test articulated in 25 U-Haul, 279 F. Supp. 2d at Id. 27 Id. 28 Id. at Id. at See id.; Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20756, at *23 (E.D. Mi. Nov. 19, 2003) (explaining that the web address that the user enters into the browser causes a related advertisement to appear) 31 Tedeschi, supra note 4; see e.g Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932, at *54-56 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003), appeal docketed, No cv (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2004) (explaining that the advertisements triggered by WhenU s software are for a company that is in direct competition with the plaintiff publisher). 32 U-Haul Int l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 723, 726 (E.D. Va. 2003). 33 Id. 34 See supra text and accompanying notes U-Haul, 279 F. Supp. 2d at 727.
5 2004] THIRD PARTY POP-UP ADVERTISEMENTS People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney. 36 A plaintiff alleging causes of action for trademark infringement and unfair competition must prove (1) that it possesses a mark, (2) that the defendant used the mark, (3) that the defendant s use of the mark occurred in commerce, (4) that the defendant used the mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services, and (5) that the defendant used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers. 37 The court found that WhenU s use of the marks did not meet the third element of this test. 38 WhenU s pop-up advertisements do not constitute use in commerce of U-Haul s trademarks. 39 The court gave four reasons for this finding. 1. Single Presentation Argument First, the court addressed U-Haul s argument that WhenU s advertisements appeared as a single visual presentation of U-Haul s website. 40 The court noted that the pop-up advertisement opens in a new window that is clearly identified. 41 It also pointed out that multiple windows are part of the user experience in a Microsoft Window s operating environment. 42 Therefore, the court reasoned, the pop-up window does not appear as part of a single visual presentation. 43 The Wells Fargo preliminary injunction decision, which generally mirrors the analysis of U-Haul, also addresses the single visual presentation argument. 44 In its factual findings, the court in Wells Fargo elaborated on the relationship of pop-up windows to websites. Wells Fargo notes that [the] graphical computer desktop was intentionally designed to represent what a user would experience when using an actual physical desktop... [t]he advertisements and coupons that SaveNow delivers to a participating consumer s desktop appear in a window... which is separate and distinct from any other window already open on the desktop People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1995). 37 U-Haul, 279 F. Supp. at 727 (quoting People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 263 F.3d at 364). 38 U-Haul, 279 F. Supp. at Id. 40 Id. at Id. 42 Id. 43 Id. 44 Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20756, at *70-77 (E.D. Mi. Nov. 19, 2003). 45 Wells Fargo, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20756, at *16-17, *27.
6 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. [Vol. 10:1 Wells Fargo also addressed an additional presentation argument. The plaintiffs alleged that the positioning of the pop-up advertisements gives consumers the impression that the pop-up is affiliated with or approved by the plaintiffs. 46 Plaintiffs in Wells Fargo cited Hard Rock Cafe International (USA) v. Morton 47 to support this argument. 48 In Hard Rock Cafe, the court explained that when a web page is framed within another web page, it may be unclear to the computer user that the pages are from different sources. 49 The court in Wells Fargo dismissed this argument by distinguishing the pop-up advertisements from the framed web pages of the Hard Rock Cafe case. 50 WhenU s advertisements pop-up and partially overlap plaintiffs sites on the computer screen, it seems apparent to the user that what is appearing on his or her screen are two distinct sources of material. 51 However, in contrast to both U-Haul and Wells Fargo, the recent Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com preliminary injunction decision found that popup advertisements appearing next to web pages are displayed in the... advertising of the defendant s product. 52 In Contacts, the court found that that pop-up advertisements triggered by a competitor s web page can constitute use in commerce. 53 Here, WhenU.com is doing far more than merely displaying Plaintiff s mark. WhenU s advertisements are delivered to [the user] when the user directly accesses Plaintiff s website Comparative Advertising Argument The U-Haul decision next addresses the argument that causing the simultaneous display of the U-Haul mark and an advertisement for a competing product would satisfy the use requirement. 55 The court cited comparative advertising cases that authorize the use of a competitor s trademark as long as the mark does not create confusion about origin or quality. 56 The court explained that the simultaneous display of the U-Haul website and the WhenU advertisement that results from the Windows 46 Id. at * Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc. v. Morton, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8340 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 1999). 48 Wells Fargo, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20756, at * Id. (citing Hard Rock Cafe International 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8390, at *24-25). 50 Id. at * Id. at * Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932, at *54 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003), appeal docketed, No cv (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2004). 53 Id. at * Id. at * U-Haul Int l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 723, 728 (E.D. Va. 2003). 56 Id.
7 2004] THIRD PARTY POP-UP ADVERTISEMENTS operating environment does not constitute use for the purposes of determining trademark infringement URL / Machine Linking Argument The third argument that the U-Haul decision addressed was whether WhenU s use of U-Haul s uniform resource locator ( URL ) and the U-Haul mark in the SaveNow computer program could constitute use in commerce. 58 The court relied on the facts that WhenU did not sell or display the U-Haul URL or mark. 59 Therefore, the court reasoned, WhenU s use could not constitute use in commerce because the mark and URL were used purely for their machine-linking function. 60 Neither was ever displayed to the consumer. 61 The Wells Fargo decision elaborated on the machine linking argument. 62 In Wells Fargo, plaintiffs argued that the use of a trademark for a machine linking function can satisfy the use in commerce requirement of a trademark infringement claim. 63 The Wells Fargo decision explained that most courts addressing this issue have held that the use of trademarks in metatags (a type of machine linking use) can violate the Lanham Act if the use also causes customer confusion or initial interest confusion. 64 The Wells Fargo decision, however, distinguishes WhenU s use of trademarks. 65 The court reasoned that WhenU s keying a trademark to cause certain advertisements to appear is not use in commerce. 66 [The use of plaintiff s URLs] to identify websites... does not constitute the use of any trademark belonging to plaintiffs... because WhenU does not use any of the plaintiffs trademarks to indicate anything about the source of the products or services it advertises. 67 Again, however, the recent Contacts decision reaches the opposite result. In that case, the court accepted the argument that machine linking can constitute use. 68 Defendant WhenU.com includes Plaintiff s URL... in the 57 Id. 58 Id. at Id. 60 Id. 61 U-Haul Int l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 723, 728 (E.D. Va. 2003). 62 Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20756, at *78-85 (E.D. Mi. Nov. 19, 2003). 63 Id. at * Id. at * Id. at * Id. 67 Id. at * Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932, at *55
8 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. [Vol. 10:1 proprietary WhenU.com directory of terms that triggers pop-up advertisements.... In so doing, Defendant WhenU.com uses Plaintiff s mark, by including a version of Plaintiff s... mark, to advertise and publicize companies that are in direct competition with Plaintiff Interference with Website Argument The fourth use argument that the U-Haul decision addresses is whether WhenU s software interferes with U-Haul s website. 70 This argument relied on the proposition that interference with a Web page constitutes a use in commerce. 71 The court distinguished the case at bar from those cited by U- Haul on the grounds that WhenU s software did not prevent or hinder access to the U-Haul website. 72 Users of WhenU s SaveNow software accepted the SaveNow license agreement and experienced the same pop-up windows as those generated by other programs. 73 The court reasoned that the pop-up advertisements have no different effect on the user s viewing of a website than any other pop-up window such as an notification window Trademark Dilution and Unfair Competition After finding that U-Haul did not satisfy the use element of trademark infringement and unfair competition, the U-Haul court quickly addressed the trademark dilution claim. 75 It reasoned that, because the use element, also required for a showing of trademark dilution, was not satisfied, U-Haul s dilution claim also fails. 76 B. Copyright Arguments In addition to alleging trademark violations, U-Haul claimed that WhenU s pop-up advertisements violated the copyright of the U-Haul website. 77 The subsequent Wells Fargo and Contacts preliminary injunction cases mirror the arguments and conclusions of U-Haul. 78 U-Haul contended that (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003), appeal docketed, No cv (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2004). 69 Id. 70 U-Haul Int l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 723, (E.D. Va. 2003). 71 Id. at Id. at Id. 74 Id. 75 Id. 76 U-Haul Int l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 723, 729 (E.D. Va. 2003). 77 Id. at Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20756, at * (E.D. Mi. Nov. 19, 2003); Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932, at *40-51 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003), appeal docketed, No cv (2d Cir. Jan.
9 2004] THIRD PARTY POP-UP ADVERTISEMENTS WhenU s pop-up advertisements created and displayed an altered U-Haul web page that constituted a derivative work of the original U-Haul web page. 79 The court concluded that WhenU neither displayed nor altered the U-Haul web page by using a pop-up advertisement. 80 U-Haul supported the display right violation argument by relying on New York Times Co. v. Tasini. 81 Tasini holds that the reproduction of newspaper articles in electronic databases violated the rights of the authors. 82 The U-Haul court distinguished the case at bar on the grounds that WhenU did not reproduce U-Haul s copyrighted material. 83 The Wells Fargo and Contacts decisions found the same. 84 U-Haul addressed the claim that WhenU violated U-Haul s derivative work right in two ways. First, the court noted that case law requires a work to be independently copyrightable to qualify as a derivative work. 85 Because WhenU s pop-up window is a transitory occurrence, the court reasoned that it was not independently copyrightable. 86 Second, the court explained that the [Microsoft] Window s environment permits a user to open multiple application and windows at the same time, with the different windows overlapping one another. 87 The court reasoned that overlapping windows is just an aspect of the way the user s desktop is displayed and that an overlapping window therefore does not constitute a derivative work. 88 Wells Fargo and Contacts applied similar arguments. In Wells Fargo the court explained that WhenU does not create a derivative work because the software does not access the plaintiffs websites. 89 It therefore cannot incorporate the plaintiffs websites into a new work. 90 The court explained further that, even if the presence of an overlapping window could be said to change the appearance of the underlying window... the mere alteration of the 23, 2004). 79 U-Haul Int l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 723, (E.D. Va. 2003). 80 Id. at New York Times Co., Inc. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001). 82 Id. at U-Haul, 279 F. Supp. at Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20756, at *102 (E.D. Mi. Nov. 19, 2003); Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932, at *41 n.37 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003), appeal docketed, No cv (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2004). 85 U-Haul Int l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 723, 731 (E.D. Va. 2003). 86 Id. 87 Id. 88 Id. 89 Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20756, at *101 (E.D. Mi. Nov. 19, 2003). 90 Id.
10 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. [Vol. 10:1 manner in which an individual consumer s computer displays the content sent by plaintiffs websites does not create a derivative work. 91 The court found that there was no contributory infringement because there was no reproduction of the work and because the computer user does not create a fixed work. 92 The Contacts decision also found that the Plaintiff publisher failed to meet the fixation requirement of a derivative work infringement claim. 93 In addition, the court reasoned that a derivative work definition that included the overlapping display of browser windows could not be valid. 94 Such a definition would be so broad as to require the Plaintiff s permission for any use overlapping windows, but the use of overlapping windows is a common method of multi-tasking with a computer. 95 IV. CONCLUSION The U-Haul case is the first pop-up advertising case to reach a decision, and it has set the foundation for the analysis of the many pending third party popup advertising cases. While courts seem to agree that the use of third party pop-up advertisements do not violate the copyright of the internet publishers, they have yet to reach a consensus on whether these advertisements violate the trademark rights of the publishers. Much rests on courts characterizations of this relatively new advertising medium. U-Haul s analysis rests primarily on an interpretation of pop-up advertisements as separate websites within the Microsoft Windows operating environment. These separate windows do not use plaintiffs trademarks or modify plaintiffs websites. 96 However, other courts have interpreted pop-up advertisements the other way, finding that consumers may indeed consider them part of the plaintiffs websites. 97 This most recent interpretation favors website publishers in pop-up advertising suits because the use element of trademark infringement claims is satisfied. However, the lack of case law exploring the subject of third party pop-up advertisements leaves much to be determined. Specifically, the conflicting decisions over trademark infringement arguments leave room for further argument on both sides of the issue. 91 Id. 92 Id. at * Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932, at *48-49 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003), appeal docketed, No cv (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2004). 94 Id. at * Id. 96 U-Haul Int l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 723, 725 (E.D. Va. 2003) Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932, at *54 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003), appeal docketed, No cv (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2004).
Internet Pop-Up Advertisements: Do They Infringe? Steven B. Pokotilow Camrin L. Crisci Angie M. Hankins Sometimes they re an annoyance to users. But do they constitute trademark infringement, unfair competition,
Page 1 of 6 LANHAM ACT CASE INVOLVED GOOGLE's ADWORDS PROGRAM AND KEYWORD META TAGS COURT GRANTED DEFENDANT's MOTION TO DISMISS A federal district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's
TRADEMARKS AND THE INTERNET TRADEMARK LAW A trademark or service mark is a word, name, symbol or device used to identify goods or services and distinguish them from others. Trademarks and service marks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN STANDARD PROCESS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 06-C-843 DR. SCOTT J. BANKS, Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER Standard Process, Inc. ( Standard Process
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
KEYWORD-LINKED ADVERTISING, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, AND GOOGLE S CONTRIBUTORY LIABILITY BENJAMIN AITKEN 1 ABSTRACT A number of trademark holders have recently challenged the policies of Google and other
The IP Book 2011 the IP book Chapter 12 Keyword Advertising Christopher R. Sullivan Mark R. Privratsky Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P. If any aspect of trademark infringement has come to dominate the current
Case 2:14-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 63 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 353 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, v. Plaintiff,
Case 2:13-cv-03323-LMA-DEK Document 13 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA EXPRESS LIEN INC. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 13-3323 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT
Case 2:06-cv-00597-TON Document 27 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA J.G. WENTWORTH, S.S.C. LIMITED : CIVIL ACTION PARTNERSHIP :
Case 4:09-cv-00033-JLH Document 60 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 4:09CV00033
Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 114 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v.
Published by Intellectual Property Law360 on July 17, 2014. Also ran in Media & Entertainment Law360. Can A Domain Name Trump Trademark Rights? --By Roberta L. Horton and Rachel Baylis, Arnold & Porter
Case 3:05-cv-07309-JGC Document 170 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ) LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ) OF OHIO, et al., ) Plaintiffs,
Commentary Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Service, Association, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007): A Free Pass For Merchant Account Providers For Secondary Liability In Trademark Counterfeiting Cases?
Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD
ASBESTOS CLAIMS AND LITIGATION PFIZER, INC. V. LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS CASE ANALYSIS: PARENT COMPANYASBESTOS LIABILITY July, 2013 ALRA Group Members http://alragroup.com / I. Introduction (F. Grey
Case :0-cv-0-AWI-SAB Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 FOX HOLLOW OF TURLOCK OWNER S ASSOCIATION, et. al., v. Plaintiffs, RICHARD SINCLAIR, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-11081 SAVE POWER LIMITED Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellant v. SYNTEK FINANCE CORP Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellee Appeals
2:13-cv-11754-DPH-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 04/18/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ADDICTION & DETOXIFICATION ) INSTITUTE, LLC, ) Plaintiff,
Case 1:12-cv-01158-BAH Document 34 Filed 04/28/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., vs. Plaintiffs,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS... FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA DALLAS DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, FEB 2 1 2012 CLERK, U.S. rustr1ct COURT By /n T. Deputy CIV.
Case 3:14-cv-01824-M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION BEST LITTLE PROMOHOUSE IN TEXAS LLC, Plaintiffs,
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
Case 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DURA GLOBAL, TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND NICOLE MARIE CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 05-38S HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, United
The trademark lawyer as brand manager This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement Brands in the Boardroom 2005 May 2005 For further information please visit www.iam-magazine.com Feature The
Case :0-cv-0-WQH-JMA Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BOSLEY MEDICAL INSTITUTE, CASE NO. 0CV WQH (JMA) vs. MICHAEL STEVEN KREMER, Plaintiff, Defendant.
Case 1:12-cv-02555-RPM Document 37 Filed 11/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 Civil Action No. 12-cv-02555-RPM STEPHEN BERKEN, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED FEB 04 2015 LIFE ALERT EMERGENCY RESPONSE, INC., a California corporation, No. 14-55930 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-03455-JAK-SS MOLLY
ASBESTOS CLAIMS AND LITIGATION PFIZER, INC. V. LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS CASE ANALYSIS: PARENT COMPANYASBESTOS LIABILITY July, 2013 ALRA Group Members http://alragroup.com / I. Introduction (F. Grey
2:13-cv-11283-GAD-LJM Doc # 6 Filed 04/03/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 174 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TOM E. FARNSWORTH and PAMELA FARNSWORTH, Plaintiffs, v NATIONSTAR
Pennsylvania Law on Advertising Injury Summary of Cases Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Brotech Corp., 857 F. Supp. 423 (E.D. Pa. 1994), aff'd, 60 F.3d 813, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 15297 (3d Cir. May 12, 1995)
Case 0:10-cv-00772-PAM-RLE Document 33 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ideal Development Corporation, Mike Fogarty, J.W. Sullivan, George Riches, Warren Kleinsasser,
ORLANDO COMMUNICATIONS LLC, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:14-cv-1022-Orl-22KRS SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. and SPRINT CORPORATION, Defendants.
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
Case 6:10-cv-01071-DNH-ATB Document 76-1 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 6:10-CV-1071
Case: 10-10823 Date Filed: 10/13/2010 Page: 1 of 7 [PUBLISH] CARLOS SHURICK, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-10823 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 6:07-cv-01974-GAP-GJK
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2008 Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4856 Follow
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06 No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PATRICK RUGIERO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; FANNIE MAE; MORTGAGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GNAMES ADVANTAGE, L.P. V. CPC ASSOCIATES, INC ACXIOM CORP. McLaughl in, J. and MEMORANDUM and ORDER NO. 00-CV-4032 September
Case: 11-13737 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-13737 [DO NOT PUBLISH] D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG In
(Previously published in The Legal Intelligencer, November 8, 2011) New Cost Guidelines for E-Discovery by Peter Vaira In a recent case in the Eastern District, Judge Legrome Davis upheld court costs of
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA APOTEX, INC., CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, v. No. 206-cv-2768 CEPHALON, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 18 th day of
Document Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA In re, Derek L. Horstemeyer, Derek L. Horstemeyer, v. Debtor. Plaintiff, C/A No. 14-04773-DD Adv. Pro. No. 15-80182-DD Chapter
Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases This article originally appeared in The Legal Intelligencer on May 1, 2013 As an intellectual property attorney, the federal jurisdiction of patent-related
Copyright, Domain Name and Trademark Litigation Cases litigated by the Firm in the trademark and trade dress arenas include infringement, dilution, cyberpiracy and unfair competition claims involving trade
187 CASE 0:09-cv-00975-JRT-TNL Document 170 Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA A.P.I., INC., ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST and A.P.I., INC., Civil No. 09-975 (JRT/JJG)
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE : AL JAZEERA AMERICA, LLC, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. 8823-VCG : AT&T SERVICES, INC., : : Defendant. : : MOTION TO STAY OCTOBER 14, 2013 LETTER OPINION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x NOT FOR PUBLICATION In re: Chapter 11 824 SOUTH EAST BOULEVARD REALTY,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION E-WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-12-3314 LOREX CANADA, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Pending before the
Republic Business Credit, LLC v. Greystone & Co., Inc. et al Doc. 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA REPUBLIC BUSINESS CREDIT, LLC CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 13-5535 GREYSTONE &
STEVEN J. HATFILL, Plaintiff, v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:04cv807 (CMH/LO) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION 242 F.R.D.
Case 1:98-cv-01232-CKK Document 854 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Civil Action
Case 2:13-cv-02107-HRH Document 38 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 13 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JAMES and KATHLEEN McCALMONT, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) FEDERAL NATIONAL
Case 3:09-cv-00432-HEH Document 77 Filed 02/19/2010 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MINNESOTA LAWYERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
M. REED HOPPER, Cal. Bar No. 1 E-mail: email@example.com ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS, Cal. Bar No. 0 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Pacific Legal Foundation Sacramento, California Telephone: ( -1 Facsimile: (
Online Advertising, Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Prof. Jane C. Ginsburg Columbia University School of Law Prof. Alain Strowel Facultés universitaires St. Louis Covington & Burling, Brussels
Online Advertising Business Models and Distinctive Signs: Should One Rethink the Concept of Confusion? By Philippe Gilliéron J.S.M. (Stanford( Stanford), Attorney Professor at Lausanne Law School (1) (1)
Case: 1:14-cv-06113 Document #: 45 Filed: 03/22/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:299 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MARIE RODGERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 14 C 6113
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE : COMPANY of AMERICA, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff : : v. : NO. 04-462 : PAUL M. PRUSKY, : STEVEN G. PRUSKY,
Case 4:13-cv-01672 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/31/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MARLO HOWARD, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
' 3 ORIGINAL D " S C O N S n r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F m T R Y BY FRc~RULE._._. --.- --- AS R E Q U I ~ ~ ~ priority 7/...-.. F::! n STATES DISTRICT COURT AL I,.!CENTRALDISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ' clased JS-5IJS-6
Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 16 Issue 2 Article 18 January 2000 Geoffrey H. Palmer v. Truck Insurance Exchange: An Analysis of Insurance Coverage for Trademark Infringement Michael Traynor
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA OLYMPIC SPORTS DATA : SERVICES, LTD., : MISCELLANEOUS ACTION Plaintiff : : v. : NO. 07-117 : SANDY MASELLI, Jr., et al., : Defendants
Case 2:08-cv-02601-MLB-KMH Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS HIMOINSA POWER SYSTEMS, INC. ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No.
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER LIABILITY FOR CONTRIBUTORY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AFTER GUCCI In Gucci America v. Hall Associates (2001), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that
Verizon v. Vonage and Sprint v. Vonage: A Tale of Two Patent Infringement Cases and Their Impact on the VoIP Industry By Kristie D. Prinz, Founder The Prinz Law Office State Bar of California Annual Meeting
Case: 1:10-cv-00117 Document #: 114 Filed: 11/08/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1538 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BRIANNA GREENE, on behalf of ) herself and others
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 15 1848 IN RE: CITY OF MILWAUKEE, et al., Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Nos. 13 cv 920 JPS, 14 cv
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CABLE NEWS NETWORK, LP, LLLP, Plaintiff-Appellee, CNNEWS.COM, v. Defendant-Appellant, MAYA ONLINE BROADBAND NETWORK No. 02-1112 (HK) COMPANY,
Case 3:10-cv-01715-PCD Document 91 Filed 08/11/11 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SUBWAY INTERNATIONAL B.V., : Plaintiff : : v. : Case No.: 3:10-cv-01715 (PCD) : PANAYOTA
Use of Competitors' Trademarks to Drive Internet Search Results Joan T. Kluger, Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon and Elizabeth Nicolas, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP In an increasingly competitive business
Case 1:12-cv-01488-GK Document 43 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL -- ---------- ------AGENCY-,-INC-.-,--- Plaintiff, v. Civil
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ARNOLD L. MESHKOV, M.D., : Plaintiff : : v. : 01-CV-2586 : UNUM PROVIDENT CORP., et al., : Defendants : EXPLANATION AND ORDER
2:10-cv-12479-PDB-MAR Doc # 8 Filed 02/24/11 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 30 JOHN HETT Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Case No. 10-cv-12479 Paul D. Borman United
Case 1:06-cv-01892-CKK Document 30 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 06 1892 (CKK) REVONET,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL
Trademark Infringement Complaint [Name/Address] Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ALPHA, INC., a Washington corporation, v. Plaintiff, MR, DELTA