1
1
U.S. Contextual
Advertising Law
Fordham University School of Law
Fourteenth Annual International Intellectual
Property Law and Policy Conference
April 21, 2006
Prof. Barton Beebe
Cardozo Law School
www.bartonbeebe.com
2
Presentation Outline
I.
The Technology of
Contextual Advertising
II. The Precedents
III. The Current Case Law
3
Doctrinal Questions
I.
“Use in commerce”?
Is the defendant making a “use in commerce” of the
plaintiff’s trademark “in connection with the sale,
offering for sale, distribution or advertising of goods
or services”? 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)(a) Does “use in
commerce” mean “trademark use”?
II.
Consumer Confusion?
Even if it is a “use in commerce,” is this use likely to
confuse consumers as to source?
III. Fair Use?
Even if the “use in commerce” is likely to confuse
consumers as to source, is it nevertheless a fair
use?
4
General Observations
I.
Consumer-Use v. Machine-Use
A law designed to address consumer perception
must now evaluate consumer perception as
mediated by machine perception.
II.
The Circularity of Trademark Exclusive
Rights
III. The Importance of Consumer Confusion
The “use in commerce” debate is a distraction. The
issue should turn on consumer confusion. See, e.g.,
Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005)
5
I.
The Technology
6
I.
The Technology
A. Pop-Up Advertising
7
I.
The Technology
B. Keyword Advertising
8
I.
The Technology
B. Keyword Advertising
9
I.
The Technology
B. Keyword Advertising
10
I.
The Technology
B. Keyword Advertising
11
I.
The Technology
B. Keyword Advertising
12
13
II.
The Precedents
14
II.
The Precedents
A. The Phone Number Cases
• Holiday Inns, Inc. v. 800 Reservation, Inc., 86
F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 1996)
– Plaintiff: 1-800-HOLIDAY, 1-800-465-4329
– Defendant: 1-800-405-4329
• DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bloom, 315 F.3d 932 (8th
Cir. 2003)
– Defendant: 1-800-637-2333, one alphanumeric translation of which is 1-800MERCEDES
15
II.
The Precedents
B. The Early Cybersquatting Cases
• Intermatic, Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F.Supp. 1227
(N.D.Ill. 1996) (intermatic.com)
• Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 945 F.
Supp. 1296 (C.D. Cal. 1996), aff’d, 141 F.3d
1311 (9th Cir. 1998) (panavision.com)
• But see Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189
F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999) (avery.net and
dennison.net), and Ford Motor Co. v. Great
Domains.com, Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 635 (E.D.
Mich. 2002)
16
II.
The Precedents
C. The Gripe Site and Related Cases
• The meaning of “services” in “in connection with
goods or services” in the Lanham Act
– Planned Parenthood Federation of America,
Inc. v. Bucci, 1997 WL 133313 (S.D.N.Y.
1997), aff’d, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir.)
– PETA v. Doughney, 113 F.Supp.2d 915 (E.D.
Va. 2000), aff’d, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001)
17
II.
The Precedents
C. The Gripe Site and Related Cases
• Links to commercial sites
– Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282
(D.N.J.), aff’d, 159 F.3d 1351 (3d Cir. 1998)
– PETA v. Doughney
– But see Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v.
Faber, 29 F.Supp.2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1998);
Voice-Tel Enters., Inc. v. JOBA, Inc. 258
F.Supp.2d 1353 (N.D.Ga. 2003); Bosley
Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672
(9th Cir. 2005)
18
II.
The Precedents
C. The Gripe Site and Related Cases
• The use “in connection with” plaintiff’s
goods/services line of reasoning
– Planned Parenthood Federation of America,
Inc. v. Bucci
– E.&J. Gallo Winery v. Spider Webs Ltd., 286
F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2002); Faegre & Benson,
LLP v. Purdy, 2004 WL 167570 (D.Minn.
2004)
– But see Bosley; Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan
Computer Corp., 378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir.
2002); Ford Motor Co. v. 2600 Enters., 177
F.Supp. 2d 661 (E.D.Mich. 2001)
19
II.
The Precedents
D. The Metatag Cases
• Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast
Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir.
1999)
• Fair use / intent analyses:
– Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796
(9th Cir. 2002)
– Bihari v. Gross, 119 F.Supp.2d 309 (S.D.N.Y.
2000)
– Horphag Research Ltd. V. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d
1036 (9th Cir. 2003)
20
II.
The Precedents
E. “Post-Domain Name” Use
• Interactive Products Corp. v. A2Z Mobile Office
Solutions, Inc., 326 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2003)
http://www.a2zsolutions.com/desks/floor/laptraveler/dkfl-lt.htm
21
III.
The Current Case Law
22
III.
•
•
•
The Current Case Law
A. The U.S. Pop-Up Advertising Cases
U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc., 279
F.Supp.2d 273 (E.D.Va. 2003) (“pure machinelinking function” not “use”)
Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.Com, Inc., 293
F.Supp.2d 734 (E.D.Mich. 2003) (no use)
1-800-Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, 309 F.
Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (yes use), rev’d,
414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005) (no use)
23
III.
•
The Current Case Law
A. The U.S. Pop-Up Advertising Cases
1-800-Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, 414 F.3d
400 (2d Cir. 2005)
“At the outset, we note that WhenU does not ‘use’ 1-800's trademark in
the manner ordinarily at issue in an infringement claim: it does not ‘place’
1-800 trademarks on any goods or services in order to pass them off as
emanating from or authorized by 1-800. The fact is that WhenU does not
reproduce or display 1-800's trademarks at all, nor does it cause the
trademarks to be displayed to a C-user.”
“A company's internal utilization of a trademark in a way that does not
communicate it to the public is analogous to a individual's private thoughts
about a trademark. Such conduct simply does not violate the Lanham Act,
which is concerned with the use of trademarks in connection with the sale
of goods or services in a manner likely to lead to consumer confusion as
to the source of such goods or services.”
24
III.
•
The Current Case Law
A. The U.S. Pop-Up Advertising Cases
1-800-Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, 414 F.3d
400 (2d Cir. 2005)
– Geico v. Google distinguished because
WhenU allows clients to purchase rights
only to a product category, not to specific
keywords.
– Pop-ups analogized to product placement
on drug store shelves
– Metatag cases distinguished because no
diversion of customers
25
III.
The Current Case Law
B. The Keyword Advertising Cases
• Search Engine as Defendant:
– Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004)
– Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Google,
Inc., 330 F.Supp.2d 700 (E.D.Va. 2004)
– Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Google,
Inc., 2005 WL 1903128 (E.D.Va. 2005)
– Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper
Factory, Inc., 2005 WL 832398 (N.D.Cal.
2005)
26
III.
The Current Case Law
B. The Keyword Advertising Cases
• Advertiser as Defendant:
– Bayer Corp. v. Custom School Frames, LLC,
259 F.Supp.2d 503 (E.D.La. 2003); Bayer
HealthCare LLC v. Nagrom, Inc., 2004 WL
2216491 (D.Kan. 2004) (use not addressed)
– Edina Realty, Inc. v. TheMLSonline.com, 2006
WL 737064 (D.Minn. Mar. 20, 2006) (use
found, citing Brookfield)
– Merck & Co. v. Mediplan Health Consulting,
2006 WL 800756 (SDNY Mar. 30, 2006) (use
27
not found)
IV.
Good Commentary
• Margreth Barrett, Internet Trademark Suits and
the Demise of “Trademark Use,” 39 U.C. Davis.
L. Rev. 371 (2006)
• Eric Goldman, Deregulating Relevancy in
Internet Trademark Law, 54 Emory L.J. 507
(2005)
• Uli Widmaier, Use, Liability, and the Structure of
Trademark Law, 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 603 (2004)
28
29
III.
•
The Current Case Law
A. The U.S. Pop-Up Advertising Cases
1-800-Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, 309 F.
Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (yes use)
“Defendants here use Plaintiff's mark in two ways. First, in causing
pop-up advertisements for Defendant Vision Direct to appear when
SaveNow users have specifically attempted to access Plaintiff's
website-on which Plaintiff's trademark appears-Defendants are
displaying Plaintiff's mark ‘in the ··· advertising of’ Defendant
Vision Direct's services. . . .”
“Second, Defendant WhenU.com includes Plaintiff's URL,
<www.1800contacts.com>, in the proprietary WhenU.com
directory of terms that triggers pop-up advertisements on
SaveNow users' computers. (Tr. at 134.) In so doing, Defendant
WhenU.com “uses” Plaintiff's mark, by including a version of
Plaintiff's 1-800 CONTACTS mark, to advertise and publicize
companies that are in direct competition with Plaintiff.”
30
Presentation Outline
I.
The Technology
A. Pop-Up Advertising
B. Keyword Advertising
II. The Precedents
A. The Telephone Number Cases
B. The Early Cybersquatting Cases
C. The Gripe Site and Related Cases
D. The Metatag Cases
III. The Current Case Law
A. The U.S. Pop-Up Advertising Cases
B. The U.S. Keyword Advertising Cases
31
32