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 additional actions.”
This court is bound by the unfortunate Adler decision from the Fifth Circuit, which venerated the initial interest confusion doctrine to salvage an otherwise obviously unmeritorious keyword advertising case.
To support their bogus initial interest confusion claims, the trademark owner points to: (1) the visual similarity between the gates (the court describes Aborder’s offerings as “knockoffs”) and (2) the similarity of the photos in the product listings. What does any of this have to do with initial interest confusion?? đ¤ˇââď¸
Nothing. The court is unimpressed:
Regalo does not allege that Aborder’s purchased keyword ads are unlabeled or that, upon clicking on the advertisement, customers are linked to deceptively generic purchase pages. To the contrary, Regalo alleges, regarding these ads that, â[m]any times, it is not immediately obvious from the sponsored ad who is selling the advertised product[,]â and that â[w]hen customers âclickâ or select a sponsored ad, they are taken to the advertised product’s detail page.â Put another way, when a customer clicks on the advertisement, they are directed to the product page for Aborder’s advertised productsâRegalo’s general statements that âmany timesâ the sponsored ads do not immediately make clear who the seller is does not allege that in the specific ads purchased by Aborder are unlabeled or misleading.
Trademark claims dismissed. In other words, despite the Adler decision’s reliance on initial interest confusion to prop up bogus keyword ad cases, the court decided it had seen enough to clean out the stupid initial interest confusion claims.
Case Citation: Regalo International LLC v. Aborder Products Inc., 2025 WL 2483167 (N.D. Tex. August 28, 2025).
More Posts About Keyword Advertising
* Lawsuits Over Competitive Keyword Advertising Are Still StupidâNRRM v. American Dream Auto Protect
*Â NJ Supreme Court Blesses Lawyersâ Competitive Keyword Ads (With a Baffling Caveat)
*Â Ninth Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword AdsâLerner & Rowe v. Brown Engstrand
*Â Second Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Advertising
*Â Catching Up on Two Keyword Ad Cases
*Â Competitor Isnât Responsible for Google Knowledge Panelâs ContentsâInternational Star Registry v. RGIFTS
*Â TIL: âTexas Tamaleâ Is an Enforceable TrademarkâTexas Tamale v. CPUSA2
*Â Internal Search Results Arenât Trademark InfringingâPEM v. Peninsula
*Â When Do Inbound Call Logs Show Consumer Confusion?âAdler v McNeil
*Â Court Denies Injunction in Competitive Keyword Ad LawsuitâNursing CE Central v. Colibri
* Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit FailsâŚDespite 236 Potentially Confused CustomersâLerner & Rowe v. Brown Engstrand
*Â More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword AdsâNicolet Law v. Bye, Goff
*Â Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are StupidâPorta-Fab v. Allied Modular
*Â Griperâs Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)âLoanStreet v. Troia
*Â Trademark Owner Fucks Around With Keyword Ad Case & Finds OutâLas Vegas Skydiving v. Groupon
*Â 1-800 Contacts Loses YET ANOTHER Trademark Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Adsâ1-800 Contacts v. Warby Parker
*Â Court Dismisses Trademark Claims Over Internal Search ResultsâLas Vegas Skydiving v. Groupon
*Â Georgia Supreme Court Blesses Googleâs Keyword Ad SalesâEdible IP v. Google
*Â Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim FailsâReflex Media v. Luxy
*Â Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)âReflex v. Luxy
*Â Fifth Circuit Says Keyword Ads Could Contribute to Initial Interest Confusion (UGH)âAdler v. McNeil
*Â Googleâs Search Disambiguation Doesnât Create Initial Interest ConfusionâAliign v. lululemon
*Â Ohio Bans Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers
*Â Want to Engage in Anti-Competitive Trademark Bullying? Second Circuit Says: Great, Have a Nice Day!â1-800 Contacts v. FTC
*Â Selling Keyword Ads Isnât Theft or ConversionâEdible IP v. Google
* Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isnât Trademark Infringement, UnlessâŚ. âAdler v. Reyes & Adler v. McNeil
*Â Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All
*Â Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in False Advertising Suit Over Search AdsâHarbor Breeze v. Newport Fishing
*Â IP/Internet/Antitrust Professor Amicus Brief in 1-800 Contacts v. FTC
* New Jersey Attorney Ethics Opinion Blesses Competitive Keyword Advertising (âŚor Does It?)
*Â Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit FailsâDr. Greenberg v. Perfect Body Image
*Â The Florida Bar Regulates, But Doesnât Ban, Competitive Keyword Ads
*Â Rounding Up Three Recent Keyword Advertising CasesâComphy v. Amazon & More
* Do Adjacent Organic Search Results Constitute Trademark Infringement? Of Course NotâŚButâŚâAmerica CAN! v. CDF
*Â The Ongoing Saga of the Florida Barâs Angst About Competitive Keyword Advertising
*Â Your Periodic Reminder That Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are StupidâPassport Health v. Avance
*Â Restricting Competitive Keyword Ads Is Anti-CompetitiveâFTC v. 1-800 Contacts
*Â Another Failed Trademark Suit Over Competitive Keyword AdvertisingâJIVE v. Wine Racks America
*Â Negative Keywords Help Defeat Preliminary InjunctionâDealDash v. ContextLogic
*Â The Florida Bar and Competitive Keyword Advertising: A Tragicomedy (in 3 Parts)
*Â Another Court Says Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesnât Cause Confusion
*Â Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesnât Show Bad IntentâONEpul v. BagSpot
*Â Brief Roundup of Three Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Developments
*Â Interesting Tidbits From FTCâs Antitrust Win Against 1-800 Contactsâ Keyword Ad Restrictions
*Â 1-800 Contacts Charges Higher Prices Than Its Online Competitors, But They Are OK With ThatâFTC v. 1-800 Contacts
*Â FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contactsâ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-CompetitiveâFTC v. 1-800 Contacts
*Â Amazon Defeats Lawsuit Over Its Keyword Ad PurchasesâLasoff v. Amazon
*Â More Evidence Why Keyword Advertising Litigation Is Waning
*Â Court Dumps Crappy Trademark & Keyword Ad CaseâONEPul v. BagSpot
*Â AdWords Buys Using Geographic Terms Support Personal JurisdictionâRilley v. MoneyMutual
*Â FTC Sues 1-800 Contacts For Restricting Competitive Keyword Advertising
*Â Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Will Go To A JuryâEdible Arrangements v. Provide Commerce
*Â Texas Ethics Opinion Approves Competitive Keyword Ads By Lawyers
*Â Court Beats Down Another Competitive Keyword Advertising LawsuitâBeast Sports v. BPI
*Â Another Murky Opinion on Lawyers Buying Keyword Ads on Other Lawyersâ NamesâIn re Naert
*Â Keyword Ad Lawsuit Isnât Covered By Californiaâs Anti-SLAPP Law
*Â Confusion From Competitive Keyword Advertising? Fuhgeddaboudit
*Â Competitive Keyword Advertising Permitted As Nominative UseâElitePay Global v. CardPaymentOptions
*Â Google And Yahoo Defeat Last Remaining Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising
*Â Mixed Ruling in Competitive Keyword Advertising CaseâGoldline v. Regal
*Â Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit FailsâInfogroup v. DatabaseLLC
*Â Damages from Competitive Keyword Advertising Are âVanishingly Smallâ
*Â More Defendants Win Keyword Advertising Lawsuits
*Â Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails Badly
*Â Duplicitous Competitive Keyword Advertising LawsuitsâFareportal v. LBF (& Vice-Versa)
*Â Trademark Owners Just Canât Win Keyword Advertising CasesâEarthCam v. OxBlue
*Â Want To Know Amazonâs Confidential Settlement Terms For A Keyword Advertising Lawsuit? Merry Christmas!
*Â Florida Allows Competitive Keyword Advertising By Lawyers
*Â Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Unceremoniously DismissedâInfostream v. Avid
*Â Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit FailsâAllied Interstate v. Kimmel & Silverman
*Â More Evidence That Competitive Keyword Advertising Benefits Trademark Owners
*Â Suing Over Keyword Advertising Is A Bad Business Decision For Trademark Owners
*Â Florida Proposes to Ban Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers
*Â More Confirmation That Google Has Won the AdWords Trademark Battles Worldwide
*Â Googleâs Search Suggestions Donât Violate Wisconsin Publicity Rights Law
*Â Amazonâs Merchandising of Its Search Results Doesnât Violate Trademark Law
*Â Buying Keyword Ads on Peopleâs Names Doesnât Violate Their Publicity Rights
*Â With Its Australian Court Victory, Google Moves Closer to Legitimizing Keyword Advertising Globally
*Â Yet Another Ruling That Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are StupidâLouisiana Pacific v. James Hardie
*Â Another Google AdWords Advertiser Defeats Trademark Infringement Lawsuit
*Â With Rosetta Stone Settlement, Google Gets Closer to Legitimizing Billions of AdWords Revenue
*Â Google Defeats Trademark Challenge to Its AdWords Service
*Â Newly Released Consumer Survey Indicates that Legal Concerns About Competitive Keyword Advertising Are Overblown