Comments on: Troubling Trademark Ruling Over Amazon’s Internal Search Results–MTM v. Amazon (Forbes Cross-Post)

By: curtisneeley

curtisneeley — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 13:11:00 +0000

In reply to Ehud Gavron. We disagree on Garcia and honor or the character of America's dishonorable copy[rite] REGIME. A 1999, 2011, or 2014 "standard" is apparently only a judicial whim. A "standard" like this is as dishonorable as expected from a nation still using a word not in any dictionary in 1790 after misspelling the compounding of copy and ritual when copying the 1710 Statute of Anne REGIME almost verbatim. Yes; A dictionary author and jurist wrote HB10 during the second session of the first Congress. The U.S. therein ignored the human right of an artist to control unauthorized publications of art if this unauthorized use was harmful to personal honor while fiercely protecting other human rights from the monarchs in England. England started Europeans today allowing artists to exclusively prevent undesired reuse of embarrassing "free speech" from unauthorized publication in 1734. Garcia just dishonorably allowed this human right to remain lost.

By: Ehud Gavron

Ehud Gavron — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:24:00 +0000

In reply to curtisneeley.

The Ninth Circuit en banc has great honor after Garcia.

It was the three-judge panel that got Garcia _all_ wrong (2:1).

Of course the en banc request should be done, and the full court should go back to its 2011 standard, not the 2014 (interim) standard, or its 1999 standard.

By: Eric Goldman

Eric Goldman — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:33:00 +0000

In reply to David Bloom. Perhaps, but I bet the court would distinguish between a mall-like marketplace that sells all kinds of brands (like Amazon) and a brand-specific online retail site, like [trademarkowner].com.

By: David Bloom

David Bloom — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:11:00 +0000

So if I go to porsche.com and search for “Toyota Prius”, Porsche cannot display the Cayenne Hybrid unless it first explicitly tells me that it does not sell a Toyota Prius? (From one confused potential buyer.) 🙂

By: curtisneeley

curtisneeley — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:33:00 +0000

This Ninth Circuit Panel punished both Amazon and MTM for fighting over abuse of “brand” advertising. The jury trial would resolve with equitable relief for MTM perhaps dwarfed by legal fees since punitive damages would be unlikely. Many times the value of ALL watch sales made at Amazon should be recovered due to the malicious harm being done.

This should resolve as a common-law theft of advertising or trespass to the chattel of brand advertising done elsewhere. Trademark dilution might almost be sufficient. Not selling at Amazon should not become a way for Amazon to use MTM’s own advertising elsewhere to dilute their brand while not selling at Amazon.

Refusing to use a disclaimer like, “Amazon found no products matching your query exactly. Here are several products that may interest you“, should now result in loss of all profits made by Amazon for watches for years.

The Ninth Circuit en banc request should not be done because of the dishonor of the Ninth Circuit after Garcia.