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…

Top 10 Internet Law Developments of 2016

Donald Trump’s election as president pretty much dominated our thoughts about 2016 (though Brexit was pretty significant too). So I decided to break up my annual top 10 list into two separate top 5 lists, one election-related, one not. Top…

More Evidence Why Keyword Advertising Litigation Is Waning

A venerable and classic Internet Law question: when a consumer uses a trademark as a search term, what are they looking for? If they are seeking the trademark owner–and only the trademark owner–then competitive keyword advertisers may encroach on the…

Court Rejects Effort to De-Index Search Results–Manchanda v. Google

Rahul Manchanda, an attorney, claims he was defamed in Ripoff Reports and elsewhere. In 2013, he obtained a restraining order against some of the authors in New York state court. Manchanda then sought to expand that order to restrain Ripoff…