2H 2018 Quick Links, Part 2 (Trademarks)
* Chanel, Inc. v. Wgaca, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158077 (SDNY Sept. 14, 2018): Chanel’s amended complaint plausibly alleges that WGACA’s use of the hashtag #WGACACHANEL infringes Chanel’s trademarks. It alleges that WGACA conjoined its acronym with the Chanel trademark…
Best and Worst Internet Laws [Repost from Concurring Opinions’ Archive]
[In 2007, I guest-blogged at the group law professor blog Concurring Opinions. With the demise of that blog, I am now archiving my guest posts on my own blog. This post first appeared on February 15, 2007.] __ [Preface: I’ve already…
The Ongoing Saga of the Florida Bar’s Angst About Competitive Keyword Advertising
In August, I reported on the Florida Bar’s continued angst about regulating competitive keyword advertising by lawyers. Read my post, “The Florida Bar and Competitive Keyword Advertising: A Tragicomedy (in 3 Parts),” for the full background. The short story is…
Your Periodic Reminder That Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Passport Health v. Avance
The parties compete for the provision of health services related to traveling, like immunizations. The defendant Avance bought keyword ads triggered on the plaintiff’s trademark “Passport Health.” In 2013, the trademark owner complained, and Avance apparently dropped the Google ad…
If Your Trademark Case Depends on Showing Initial Interest Confusion, Save Your Money–Select Comfort v. John Baxter
I’ve bashed the initial interest confusion doctrine for decades. It’s one of the worst doctrinal “innovations” in trademark law–ever. However, you might have noticed that I haven’t blogged many initial interest confusion cases recently. Why? Because the phrase rarely shows…
Restricting Competitive Keyword Ads Is Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
Starting in 2002 and continuing for about a decade, 1-800 Contacts systematically locked up many of its online contact lenses retail competitors into settlement agreements that prohibited the parties from bidding on each other’s trademarks at the search engines. Perhaps…
Section 230 Helps Malware Vendor Avoid Liability for Blocking Decision–PC Drivers v. Malwarebytes
We rarely see cases like this any more, so I think it’s worth blogging this April ruling even though it just showed up in Westlaw. PC Drivers makes software designed to speed up users’ computers, an industry niche that’s known…
The Necessity of Geoblocking in the Age of (Almost) Unavoidable Geolocation (Guest Blog Post)
by guest blogger Marketa Trimble Recent U.S. court decisions suggest that geoblocking might no longer be optional – the use of geoblocking might now be de facto mandatory for any website operator who wants to avoid being subject to the jurisdiction…
Departing Employee Required to Transfer Social Media Accounts–Hyperheal Hyperbarics v. Shapiro
This is an ownership dispute over a departing employee’s right to use social media accounts and trademarks of an employer. The facts are somewhat atypical. Shapiro founded a company called Hyperheal Hyperbarics to provide “hyperbaric oxygen therapy”. In 2014, the…
Another Failed Trademark Suit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising–JIVE v. Wine Racks America
The parties compete in the wine rack/wine cellar business. The defendant bought the plaintiff’s trademarks for keyword ads. The plaintiff alleges this creates initial interest confusion. The 10th Circuit’s Lens.com ruling governs this case. The court says that case makes…