Rescuecom v. Google Appellant Brief
…that decided 1-800 Contacts v. WhenU, which held that an adware vendor (WhenU) wasn’t making a trademark use in commerce by selling trademarked keywords. You can find the appellant’s brief…
Haifa University Search Engine Conference Recap
…trespass to chattels, GEICO, Rescuecom or 1-800 Contacts were mentioned only in passing or not at all. The fact that we could go almost 11 hours without reaching these topics…
Keyword Ads and Metatags Don’t Confuse Consumers–J.G. Wentworth v. Settlement Funding
…behalf the Wells Fargo, U-Haul and 1-800 Contacts adware cases. However, the court is more persuaded by the Buying for the Home argument that triggering ads based on a trademark…
2006 Blog Year-in-Review
by Eric Goldman Most Popular Blog Posts of the Year 1) O’Reilly and the “Web 2.0” Trademark 2) NYT on Fair Use and Documentaries (overflow from Slashdotting of #1) 3)…
Top Cyberlaw Developments of 2006
By Eric Goldman and John Ottaviani [Eric’s Note: I will be in Israel for the rest of the year. So while it’s a little premature to publish an end-of-the-year recap,…
Courts Can’t Figure Out if Buying Keywords Constitutes Trademark Use–Buying for the Home v. Humble Abode
…competitive keyword purchases on its trademarks when it does the same thing itself. (But this seems to happen fairly frequently–for example, it was an embarrassing fact in the 1-800 Contacts…
Google Wins Keyword Lawsuit–Rescuecom v. Google
By Eric Goldman Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., No. 5:04-CV-1055 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2006). You can find the ruling here (WARNING: 1.7MB file) Introduction and the 1-800 Contacts Precedent Last…
Search Engine Liability for Selling Keywords Redux–800-JR Cigar v. GoTo.com
By Eric Goldman 800-JR Cigar, Inc. v. GoTo.com, Inc., 2006 WL 1971659 (D. N.J. July 13, 2006) This is a confusing but important case about search engine liability for selling…
Merck v. Mediplan Redux–Keyword Purchases Really Aren’t Trademark Use
…1-800 Contacts precedent. It wouldn’t surprise me if Merck asks them to do so. Meanwhile, if the Merck court is right about the reach of the 1-800 Contacts precedent, then…
Keyword Purchases Not a Trademark Use–Merck v. Mediplan Health Consulting
…1127(1)-(2)). This section effectively requires that consumers “see” the trademark usage for it to qualify. The Merck court, citing to the Second Circuit 1-800 Contacts ruling from last summer (as…