Lawsuits Over Competitive Keyword Advertising Are Still Stupid–NRRM v. American Dream Auto Protect
This case involves two competitors in the industry of auto protection plans (VSCs). The rival’s affiliates bought the plaintiff’s trademark “CarShield” for competitive keyword ads. The plaintiff alleged:
Defendant’s agents do not label or indicate that their generic ads direct a customer to Defendant and other competitors who pay for the websites to send them consumer leads. The advertised websites prevent consumers from linking to Plaintiff’s websites and obtaining Plaintiff’s VSCs….Consumers are deceived into believing they are learning about, providing personal information for, and ultimately obtaining quotes for Plaintiff’s VSCs.
Trademark Infringement
The court has no idea how to define IIC. Check out this confused statement:
[IIC] occurs when “an alleged infringer uses a competitor’s mark to direct consumer attention to its product.” Lerner & Rowe PC v. Brown Engstrand & Shely, LLC, 119 F.4th 711, 718 (9th Cir. 2024). The confusion creates initial consumer interest “even though no actual sale is completed as a result of the confusion.” Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. McNeil Consultants, LLC, 10 F.4th 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotations omitted). Initial interest confusion is a “bait and switch” approach that allows “a competitor to get its foot in the door by confusing consumers.” Dorr-Oliver, Inc. v. Fluid-Quip, Inc., 94 F.3d 376, 382 (7th Cir. 1996)….
The Eighth Circuit held that initial-interest confusion only occurs when a jury question exists as to the issue of consumer sophistication. Thus, if consumers are sophisticated, such as professional purchasers, initial interest confusion is not possible. However, having relatively recently adopted the initial interest confusion theory, the Eighth Circuit has not yet addressed a situation such as the one in this case concerning the purchase of a plaintiff’s trademarks for advertising with an internet search engine.
Nevertheless, the court says the plaintiff’s allegations are good enough:
It is plausible, based on Plaintiff’s allegations, that a consumer searching for the term “CarShield” and shown advertisements for carwarrantyoffers.com, goautowarranty.com, consumeraffairs.com, or forbes.com would believe those websites offered CarShield’s VSCs. The advertisements included in Plaintiff’s amended complaint use generic text and are not clearly labeled as belonging to Defendant, a competitor
(Note: the Network Automation case said that the ads need to be labeled as ads, not that they needed to be labeled as belonging to the defendant).
At this stage of the litigation, when courts have repeatedly stated the likelihood of confusion is usually a fact determination reserved for summary judgment, the Court finds Plaintiff has plausibly alleged Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s trademarks through initial interest confusion.
The court cites the Warby Parker and Lerner & Rowe opinions but clearly didn’t engage with the standards they articulated, which would have instantly doomed this case.
Secondary Trademark Infringement
The court dismisses the secondary trademark infringement claims. The complaint doesn’t sufficiently allege an agency relationship with the ad buyers, or for that matter, who the purported agents are.
The court also says the plaintiff didn’t allege intentional inducement:
Hiring an agent to purchase keywords on internet search engines is not enough to establish trademark infringement; therefore, it is also not enough to establish contributory liability for trademark infringement. [cite to the Warby Parker decision]
Um…I think I’m missing something fundamental. The court just denied the motion to dismiss the direct trademark infringement due to IIC, yet the court seems to say that competitive keyword advertising categorically isn’t direct trademark infringement. I believe only one of these propositions can be true. 🤷♂️
So I don’t really understand what happened here or why the court dismissed the case in entirely, with leave to amend. Call me confused. Perhaps the court will shut this case down for good in the next round.
Case Citation: NRRM, LLC v. American Dream Auto Protect, Inc., 2025 WL 2106971 (E.D. Mo. July 28, 2025)
More Posts About Keyword Advertising
* NJ Supreme Court Blesses Lawyers’ Competitive Keyword Ads (With a Baffling Caveat)
* Ninth Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Ads–Lerner & Rowe v. Brown Engstrand
* Second Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Advertising
* Catching Up on Two Keyword Ad Cases
* Competitor Isn’t Responsible for Google Knowledge Panel’s Contents–International Star Registry v. RGIFTS
* TIL: “Texas Tamale” Is an Enforceable Trademark–Texas Tamale v. CPUSA2
* Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula
* When Do Inbound Call Logs Show Consumer Confusion?–Adler v McNeil
* Court Denies Injunction in Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit–Nursing CE Central v. Colibri
* Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit Fails…Despite 236 Potentially Confused Customers–Lerner & Rowe v. Brown Engstrand
* More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Bye, Goff
* Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular
* Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet v. Troia
* Trademark Owner Fucks Around With Keyword Ad Case & Finds Out–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Groupon
* 1-800 Contacts Loses YET ANOTHER Trademark Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Ads–1-800 Contacts v. Warby Parker
* Court Dismisses Trademark Claims Over Internal Search Results–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Groupon
* Georgia Supreme Court Blesses Google’s Keyword Ad Sales–Edible IP v. Google
* Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v. Luxy
* Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)–Reflex v. Luxy
* Fifth Circuit Says Keyword Ads Could Contribute to Initial Interest Confusion (UGH)–Adler v. McNeil
* Google’s Search Disambiguation Doesn’t Create Initial Interest Confusion–Aliign v. lululemon
* Ohio Bans Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers
* Want to Engage in Anti-Competitive Trademark Bullying? Second Circuit Says: Great, Have a Nice Day!–1-800 Contacts v. FTC
* Selling Keyword Ads Isn’t Theft or Conversion–Edible IP v. Google
* Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless…. –Adler v. Reyes & Adler v. McNeil
* Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All
* Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in False Advertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. Newport Fishing
* IP/Internet/Antitrust Professor Amicus Brief in 1-800 Contacts v. FTC
* New Jersey Attorney Ethics Opinion Blesses Competitive Keyword Advertising (…or Does It?)
* Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Dr. Greenberg v. Perfect Body Image
* The Florida Bar Regulates, But Doesn’t Ban, Competitive Keyword Ads
* Rounding Up Three Recent Keyword Advertising Cases–Comphy v. Amazon & More
* Do Adjacent Organic Search Results Constitute Trademark Infringement? Of Course Not…But…–America CAN! v. CDF
* The Ongoing Saga of the Florida Bar’s Angst About Competitive Keyword Advertising
* Your Periodic Reminder That Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Passport Health v. Avance
* Restricting Competitive Keyword Ads Is Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
* Another Failed Trademark Suit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising–JIVE v. Wine Racks America
* Negative Keywords Help Defeat Preliminary Injunction–DealDash v. ContextLogic
* The Florida Bar and Competitive Keyword Advertising: A Tragicomedy (in 3 Parts)
* Another Court Says Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesn’t Cause Confusion
* Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesn’t Show Bad Intent–ONEpul v. BagSpot
* Brief Roundup of Three Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Developments
* Interesting Tidbits From FTC’s Antitrust Win Against 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Restrictions
* 1-800 Contacts Charges Higher Prices Than Its Online Competitors, But They Are OK With That–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
* FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
* Amazon Defeats Lawsuit Over Its Keyword Ad Purchases–Lasoff v. Amazon
* More Evidence Why Keyword Advertising Litigation Is Waning
* Court Dumps Crappy Trademark & Keyword Ad Case–ONEPul v. BagSpot
* AdWords Buys Using Geographic Terms Support Personal Jurisdiction–Rilley v. MoneyMutual
* FTC Sues 1-800 Contacts For Restricting Competitive Keyword Advertising
* Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Will Go To A Jury–Edible Arrangements v. Provide Commerce
* Texas Ethics Opinion Approves Competitive Keyword Ads By Lawyers
* Court Beats Down Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit–Beast Sports v. BPI
* Another Murky Opinion on Lawyers Buying Keyword Ads on Other Lawyers’ Names–In re Naert
* Keyword Ad Lawsuit Isn’t Covered By California’s Anti-SLAPP Law
* Confusion From Competitive Keyword Advertising? Fuhgeddaboudit
* Competitive Keyword Advertising Permitted As Nominative Use–ElitePay Global v. CardPaymentOptions
* Google And Yahoo Defeat Last Remaining Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising
* Mixed Ruling in Competitive Keyword Advertising Case–Goldline v. Regal
* Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Infogroup v. DatabaseLLC
* Damages from Competitive Keyword Advertising Are “Vanishingly Small”
* More Defendants Win Keyword Advertising Lawsuits
* Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails Badly
* Duplicitous Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuits–Fareportal v. LBF (& Vice-Versa)
* Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v. OxBlue
* Want To Know Amazon’s Confidential Settlement Terms For A Keyword Advertising Lawsuit? Merry Christmas!
* Florida Allows Competitive Keyword Advertising By Lawyers
* Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Unceremoniously Dismissed–Infostream v. Avid
* Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Allied Interstate v. Kimmel & Silverman
* More Evidence That Competitive Keyword Advertising Benefits Trademark Owners
* Suing Over Keyword Advertising Is A Bad Business Decision For Trademark Owners
* Florida Proposes to Ban Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers
* More Confirmation That Google Has Won the AdWords Trademark Battles Worldwide
* Google’s Search Suggestions Don’t Violate Wisconsin Publicity Rights Law
* Amazon’s Merchandising of Its Search Results Doesn’t Violate Trademark Law
* Buying Keyword Ads on People’s Names Doesn’t Violate Their Publicity Rights
* With Its Australian Court Victory, Google Moves Closer to Legitimizing Keyword Advertising Globally
* Yet Another Ruling That Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Louisiana Pacific v. James Hardie
* Another Google AdWords Advertiser Defeats Trademark Infringement Lawsuit
* With Rosetta Stone Settlement, Google Gets Closer to Legitimizing Billions of AdWords Revenue
* Google Defeats Trademark Challenge to Its AdWords Service
* Newly Released Consumer Survey Indicates that Legal Concerns About Competitive Keyword Advertising Are Overblown