Plaintiff asserts rights in the SLEEP NUMBER and NUMBER BED marks for air mattresses. Defendants compete. Defendants allegedly used” plaintiff’s actual trademarks as paid search terms and as identical phrases in their own web-based advertising in text pages, combined text and graphical pages, as terms embedded in linked internet address urls, and in other fashions.”
I mean, for sure, it seems to be one of those situations where no one would have ever learned of the sites GODLMANSACHS666.COM and GOLDMANSACHS13.COM, but for the demand letter, but the letter itself doesn’t have the misplaced certitude, the overblown rhetoric, the baseless imputation of evil to the recipient, and over-all lack of
Prof Goldman: “1-800 VAIL Doesn’t Infringe — Vail Associates v. Vend-Tel-Co“:
This case nicely illustrates that a vanity 800 number containing a third party trademark doesn’t create a likelihood of consumer confusion. To the extent that 800 numbers are analogizable to keyword advertising, this case suggests that maybe keyword trademark triggering doesn’t either.
Press Release:
Edison-based I-many, Inc. (NASDAQ:IMNY) announced that it has filed a lawsuit against Model N, Inc. of Redwood Shores, Calif., for trademark infringement, dilution, fraudulent business practices and unfair competition.
The Edison provider of contract management software and services alleges that Model N has deliberately used I-many’s registered trademarks in a series of
Prof Goldman: “Keyword Ads and Metatags Don’t Confuse Consumers — J.G. Wentworth v. Settlement Funding” (Eastern District of Pennsylvania, finding no likelihood of confusion). From the post:
“. . . this case stands for two clear legal propositions:
* if keyword-triggered ad copy doesn’t display the plaintiff’s trademarks, plaintiff loses
* if search
Audi AG v. D’Amato dba Quattro Enthusiasts (05-2359) (6th Cir Nov 27, 2006) (AUDISPORT.COM infringes and dilutes AUDI).
From Lovells September 2006 newsletter: “Germany: Trademarks As Meta Tags” (discussion of German Supreme Court decision re whetherunauthorized use of a trademark as a meta tag constitutes infringement in Germany (yes)).
Prof Goldman expresses mystification about a recent metatag decision.
I apologize for not reporting on this case earlier.
Defendants were a not for profit organization (“NFP”) helping restaurant workers, and a restaurant owned by a workers’ cooperative, in which the NFP had a 40% interest. The NFP protested Plaintiff’s policies relating to its workers. The NFP created a hand-out that reproduced the Plaintiff’s logo
Barrett, ‘Internet Trademark Suits and the Demise of ‘Trademark Use,‘ 39 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 371 (2006). Abstract:
“The Internet has provided countless new ways for ingenious businesses and individuals to refer to a plaintiff’s mark in a manner that impacts the plaintiff’s business. These new methods may not directly associate the mark
