Google Search Isn’t a Common Carrier–Richards v. Google
Richards has run the SpirituallySmart religious-themed website since at least 2000. The website touts that “Multiple AI systems have recognized this website as the most meaningful usage of the term ‘Spiritually Smart.’” 🤖 Richards’ mission apparently includes becoming a serial…
How Does the Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine Improve Trademark Analyses?–Dassault v. Childress
These parties have been fighting with each other since at least 2009. This case had a trial in 2017 and ruled for the defense. In 2020, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case for a new trial, which occurred in March…
A Massive Roundup of Section 230 Decisions
This post also owes its origins to my 2-week trip to China in June. Section 230 decisions started backing up while I was on the trip and never stopped accruing. In total, this post covers about 30 decisions in 7k+…
Post-Mortem of a Misguided Logo Trademark Lawsuit–LegalForce v. Internet Brands
The plaintiff in this case is LegalForce, Raj Abhyanker CEO, which run the notorious trademark registration operation Trademarkia. How notorious? Trademarkia’s own web site has a page entitled “Is Trademarkia a Scam? Debunking Hearsay,” which brings to mind the old…
The Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine Refuses to Die
Continuing my recent critical coverage of the initial interest confusion doctrine, here are a few more rulings on the subject. Hoffmann Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC, 2025 WL 2587109 (8th Cir. Sept….
‘Initial Interest Confusion’ Is More of a Vibe Than a Credible Legal Doctrine–Penn State v. Vintage Brand
This is a merchandise “counterfeiting” case. In a prior ruling in this case, a “jury determined that Defendants had willfully violated Penn State’s trademark and awarded Penn State $28,000 in compensatory damages.” The defendants challenged the jury results, including Penn…
Court Rejects Initial Interest Confusion Claims for Competitive Keyword Ads–Regalo v. Aborder
The litigants compete in the market for baby/pet gates. The incumbent sells under the brands “Regalo” and “Carlson.” The defendant “Aborder contends that the use of trademark advertising through the purchase of Amazon sponsored ads cannot constitute trademark infringement without…
Google Search Isn’t a “Common Carrier” (DUH)–Ohio v. Google
State AGs undertake some of the stupidest and most MAGAlicious stunts, a form of vacuous theater to own the libs rather than better the lives of their constituents. In this case, Ohio AG Yost sued Google, claiming that Google Search…
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…
NJ Supreme Court Blesses Lawyers’ Competitive Keyword Ads (With a Baffling Caveat)
We are at the terminal stage of a 250-year old democracy, so what’s on the priority list for regulators of lawyers? In New Jersey, it’s competitive keyword advertising by lawyers. Seriously? When I wrote on this topic in 2016, I…