Court Dismisses Trademark Claims Over Internal Search Results–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Groupon

Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures offers tandem skydiving under the “Fyrosity” brand. It has never offered its services through Groupon. A search for “skydive Fyrosity” at Groupon says “No matching deals. You may also like ….” and produces search results for competitive skydiving vendors. (See the screenshot on the right, which I took on March 1 from my Santa Clara office). LVSA sued Groupon for trademark infringement. The court grants summary judgment to Groupon, applying the expedited confusion analysis from Multi-Time Machine v. Amazon.

Purchaser Care. Skydiving is expensive. More importantly, “skydiving service is uniquely dangerous. Because potential skydivers entrust their lives to the service provider, the service is ‘sophisticated’ in a way that the goods (watches) in Multi Time were not. Thus, a consumer is likely to exercise more caution in selecting a skydiving provider.”

Search Results Page Appearance. “each result on Groupon’s page was clearly labeled with the service provider’s name.” The fact that “its Fyrosity mark appears multiple times on the results webpage” is no different than the MTM case.

Actual Confusion. LVSA alleged no credible evidence.

The court summarizes:

The record may demonstrate that, on a regular basis…, prospective customers try to bargain with LVSA based on pricing found on Groupon. The record may likewise show that consumers sometimes mistakenly seek to redeem vouchers for other skydiving companies with LVSA….as a matter of law, a reasonably prudent consumer in this marketplace is unlikely to be confused as to the origin of the service offered.

Case citation: Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 2022 WL 594833 (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2022). Personnel note: LVSA’s attorney was Steve Gibson, who you might remember from his failures at Righthaven.

BONUS: Melwani v., Inc., 2022 WL 670919 (W.D. Wash. March 7, 2022). Melwani sells products under the “Royal Silk” brand. Melwani complains that searches for “Royal Silk” on Amazon’s internal search tool produce search results pages that include items for third-party sellers and Amazon itself. For example, according to the complaint:

On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff searched for “Royal Silk” under all departments on, yielding 60 product listings, including “Sponsored” product listings—ads paid for by the seller. Of these sixty listings, 17 were for official Royal Silk products, 40 listings were totally unrelated to the query Royal Silk—of these 40, 8 were paid sponsored ads for sellers who purchased the keywords “Royal Silk” and 32 were for third party sellers who Plaintiff alleges “likely” purchased this keyword—the remaining 3 were third party infringers, unlawfully using or showing the words “Royal Silk” in their product listings.

Absent from this August 19, 2020, search was any mention of the Royal Silk Store or any product listings for Royal Silk pocket squares or handkerchiefs, of which there are allegedly over 200 product listings.

Melwani sued Amazon for trademark infringement, dilution, and more. With respect to the trademark claim, the court says the Ninth Circuit’s Multi-Time Machine v. Amazon case is “directly on point and forecloses Plaintiff’s ability to bring this claim as a matter of law.” The false designation of origin claim is similarly governed by the Ninth Circuit’s Lasoff v. Amazon ruling.

More Posts About Keyword Advertising

* 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