Comments on: Search Engine Liability for Selling Keywords Redux–800-JR Cigar v. GoTo.com https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/07/search_engine_l.htm Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:03:28 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dan Morris https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/07/search_engine_l.htm#comment-407 Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:03:28 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/07/search_engine_l.htm#comment-407 Test this one. We have affiliates throughout the US that are allowed to utilize the trademarks Astro Jump and Astro Events because of signed contracts. Every adword purchased by one of our affiliates, direct links to http://www.astrojump.com/…. We also run a bizop campaign soliciting for new owners. Because Astro Jump was the original name of inflatables on the west coast, many manufacturers purchase the key words Astro Jump and Astro Jumps. One of our major competitors Spacewalk also buys the key words to promote his bizop campaign. Based on previous rulings and current environments, should we litigate or market, per the above blog. Every office that he opens potentially costs us $50,000/year in lost revenues if they come as a result of a click through on our TM.

Second note for the above. If you use the google tm as an adword, they protect theirs by notifying you that it isn’t relative, but if you will pay $5.00/click, then it will activate. Once you activate at $5.00 and receive a few clicks, it disables again and then the cost is raised to $15.00

]]> By: Ken Myers https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/07/search_engine_l.htm#comment-406 Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:11:06 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/07/search_engine_l.htm#comment-406 Great post! Totally agree – the 230 analysis is a bit off. First off, GoTo doesn’t have to prove that it’s an interactive computer service – all it has to be is a “provider or user” of such a service. And I couldn’t help but laugh when I read “However, as far as this Court can tell, GoTo does not provide access to the Internet like service providers such as AOL.” That’s a point that hasn’t been raised in a looong time (or won, for that matter), and I think it’s well settled to the contrary now. (See, e.g., Schneider v. Amazon.com; Barrett v. Fonorow, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1184, 1191 (App. Ct. 2003)(“We reject the suggestion that Intelisoft is not a ‘provider or user of an interactive computer service’ merely because it does not provide Internet access.”)) I suppose that means GoTo’s lawyers should’ve done a little more research – like your blog.

However, I think the interesting analysis would have been of the other 230 prongs. Namely, did GoTo’s actions constitute “development” such that it is an “information content provider” of the offending information? I think that would’ve been at least a plausible basis for denying the 230 defense, in contrast to the judge’s point referred to above…

]]>