Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula

This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. The trademark owner memorably (and ridiculously) characterized the rival as engaging in “keyword conquesting,” a term I encourage you never to use. The court already sent that trademark claim to the jury (my blog post on that ruling). However, the trademark owner remains so convinced of its rightness that it sought summary judgment one more time. I guess they subscribe to the lesson my grandma taught me: “if you don’t ask, the answer is always no.” However, not all questions are worth asking, and the judge responds to this motion as if the trademark owner is the backseat passenger asking “are we there yet?” for the 16th time.

The trademark owner is hopping mad about the rival website’s internal search function, where customers can search for the trademark owner’s trademarks and get search results displaying the rival’s offerings. The court says the rival makes a trademark use in commerce by using the trademarks in its “metatags” (ugh). Cite to the 17 year old JG Wentworth ruling. The court doesn’t define what it means by a metatag or establish that “metatags” were the technical mechanism that associated the rival’s products with the trademark owner’s trademark. These omissions would be frustrating if the court didn’t reject the trademark owner on other grounds.

The court continues that the internal search engine’s results don’t create any likelihood of consumer confusion:

there is no issue of customers being diverted from Penn Engineering’s website onto Peninsula’s website because the user is already on Peninsula’s website in the first place. Or, in the terms that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has used, there is no “bait and switch” where Peninsula is trying to get its foot in the door because Peninsula has already gotten its foot in the door by the fact that the consumer is on Peninsula’s website.

The trademark owner argued that the customers may have been directed via initial interest confusion to the rival website. However, that issue has already been sent to the jury. The court says there can’t be MULTIPLE instances of INITIAL interest confusion:

By definition, initial interest confusion is “confusion that creates initial customer interest.” Just as there cannot be two start times for one person running a marathon or two first days of work for someone starting a new job, it logically follows that there cannot be two points of initial interest for a customer. Although the customer may experience initial customer interest when clicking on Peninsula’s Google ad with Penn Engineering’s marks, that user cannot experience yet another instance of initial interest once directed to Peninsula’s website

I have a better idea: perhaps the entire concept of initial interest confusion is illusory, so it occurs never; not once, twice, or more times in the same search.


The trademark owner argued that the search results didn’t disclaim an affiliation between the companies, but it had no evidence to support that concern and thus it couldn’t survive summary judgment.

Indeed, because the activity is taking place on the rival’s site, with the rival’s internal search engine, the court says a reasonable consumer conducting that search wouldn’t be confused. The court gives several examples essentially mocking the trademark owner’s position:

Like a person searching for Domino’s Pizza on Pizza Hut’s website could not be confused that they are purchasing Domino’s Pizza when being presented with Pizza Hut options, a customer searching for Penn Engineering products on Peninsula’s website that presents Peninsula products could not be confused into thinking he or she is buying Penn Engineering products…

If a customer went on to Samsung’s website, searched for “Apple iPhone” and then was presented with a list of Samsung Galaxy phones labeled as such, that customer could not possibly be confused into thinking he or she was purchasing an Apple iPhone when Apple and Samsung are two separate companies selling two separate and distinct products. Likewise, if a customer went to the Toyota website, searched for “Honda Civic” and was presented with a list of cars clearly labeled as Toyota Corollas, that person could not think that such presented options included a Honda Civic. The only difference here is that, instead of Peninsula’s search results directly stating the name Peninsula, they include the part name. A customer could not be confused that a part name, wholly different from the part name entered in the website search tool, is in fact that same part name

(Protip: If you are searching for Domino’s Pizza on Pizza Hut’s website, you are probably too baked for pizza and should instead go straight for Taco Bell 🌿).

To be fair, the court assumes that the searching consumer already knows the taxonomy of marketplace players and their independence. That’s certainly true for high-profile and well-advertised consumer items like fast food chains, mass-market phones, and major car labels, but is it true in this particular niche? I raised this taxonomical issue with the Network Automation case, which involved niche-y job scheduler software where a consumer who is new to the niche might not know the various brands when starting a search. Still, this concern is constrained by the fact that in this case, the consumer is already at the rival’s website and getting search results that don’t contain the same part numbers as the trademark owner’s.

The court hedges its position about internal search engines, saying there might be confusion if:

  • the trademark owner shows that consumers don’t understand the source of the items listed in the internal search results.
  • the rival included ad copy telling consumers they were buying the trademark owner’s items when they weren’t.

The court ends with an exasperated plea to the parties to just stop it:

Penn Engineering brought its initial complaint against Peninsula almost five years ago in February 2019. In that time, the parties have waged innumerable formal battles over seemingly everything available to parties in civil litigation: countless discovery disputes, motions for sanctions, and two rounds of summary judgment. The informal battles total at least three times three. The parties now face the stark reality that, at least, there is no magical third time for summary judgment. Unless they can resolve this matter on their own, they will next face a jury, which will bring this liability saga to a close.

Sorry, your honor, a jury trial isn’t likely to bring this saga to a close. The parties will surely enjoy a full cycle of appeals if they can’t settle.

Remarkably, the opinion doesn’t mention the Multi-Time Machine v. Amazon case, the leading trademark decision regarding internal search engines. Even though that decision is from another circuit (the 9th, while this district court is in the 3rd), I’m baffled by its omission. However, the results are consistent with each other.

Case citation: Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. v. Peninsula Components, Inc., 2023 WL 9051998 (E.D. Penn. Dec. 28, 2023)

More Posts About Keyword Advertising

* 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