1-800 Contacts Charges Higher Prices Than Its Online Competitors, But They Are OK With That--FTC v. 1-800 Contacts

1-800 Contacts Charges Higher Prices Than Its Online Competitors, But They Are OK With That–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts

As you recall, the FTC has taken the position that 1-800 Contacts’ agreement with competitors, via settlement agreements, not to bid on each other trademarks as keywords violates antitrust laws. Prior blog posts: * FTC Sues 1-800 Contacts For Restricting…

Catching Up On Some Recent Click Fraud Rulings

After all of the excitement over click fraud a decade ago, we don’t often see click fraud cases any more. However, just in the past couple months I’ve seen 3 rulings that I wanted to share with you. Wickfire, LLC…

FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts' Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive--FTC v. 1-800 Contacts

FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts

As you may recall, the FTC is pursuing 1-800 Contacts for antitrust violations based on 1-800 Contacts having sued and then settled with competitors who bought keyword ads on 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks. Recently, the FTC filed its “Complaint Counsel’s Corrected…

Plaintiff Can’t Erase Court Order From the Internet–Nelson v. Social Security Commissioner

The Commissioner of Social Security ruled that Nelson’s disability ended in 2010 and terminated benefits. In 2014, Nelson filed a federal lawsuit contesting that determination. In 2014, the judge ruled in her favor. In 2016, Nelson went back to court….

Trademark Lawsuit Claiming Organic Search Results Create Initial Interest Confusion Falls Apart–Larsen v. Larson

Disclosure note: I provided an expert report in this now-dismissed case, so you might consider my comments to be advocacy. I’ll explain my expert role in a bit. The Court Opinion Susan Larsen practices business law in the Denver, Colorado…

Your Periodic Reminder That Initial Interest Confusion Lawsuits Are Stupid--Epic v. YourCareUniverse

Your Periodic Reminder That Initial Interest Confusion Lawsuits Are Stupid–Epic v. YourCareUniverse

The plaintiff has a registered trademark for “CARE EVERYWHERE” for B2B healthcare software. The defendant, YourCareUniverse, also makes healthcare software. It extended its brand to include “YOURCAREEVERYWHERE” and launched a public-facing patient healthcare portal under the extended brand. The plaintiff…

YouTube Defeats Another Remove-and-Relocate Case–Darnaa v. Google

YouTube has been sued a few times for removing a video based on its spam policies and then relocating it to a new URL because remove-and-relocate breaks in-bound links (and any associated marketing investments) and resets the view counter. This…

First Amendment Protects Google’s De-Indexing of “Pure Spam” Websites–e-ventures v. Google

e-ventures does SEO. Google determined that e-ventures “egregiously” violated its webspam guidelines. As a result, Google de-indexed all of e-ventures’ sites. e-ventures claims Google had bad motivations for the de-indexing decisions. The evidence didn’t support this claim: “e-ventures’ own consultant…

Amazon Defeats Lawsuit Over Its Keyword Ad Purchases–Lasoff v. Amazon

Lasoff owns Ingrass, which makes artificial turf. He claims he’s losing business to “cheaper, counterfeit” versions of Ingrass. (The opinion uses the term “counterfeit,” though it probably means knockoffs). He objects to the fact that Amazon runs keyword ads for…

2H 2016 Quick Links, Part 10 (Marketing, Uber, Airbnb, Taxes & More)

Marketing/Advertising * Danny Sullivan: Facebook’s racial targeting isn’t new, bad or always illegal despite renewed attention * In re Sling Media Slingbox Advertising Litigation (SDNY Aug. 12, 2016). Sling isn’t liable to consumers for adding its own ads to recorded…