Remove Advertising Remove Confidentiality Remove Copying Remove Settlement
article thumbnail

Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

To many trademark owners, it’s a simple decision to sue when the advertiser includes the trademark in the ad copy. To many trademark owners, it’s a simple decision to sue when the advertiser includes the trademark in the ad copy. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. None of the clicks led to sales.

article thumbnail

Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet v. Troia

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Also, there should not be a “use in commerce” when the advertiser (here, Troia) doesn’t actually offer any goods or services in the marketplace. And how can consumers be “diverted” with the ad copy accurately previewed what consumers could expect to get at the link terminus? That’s what gripers do.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

VeePN Agrees to Block Torrent Traffic and Pirate Sites on U.S. Servers

TorrentFreak

The company was accused of advertising on torrent sites such as YTS and billing itself as a “Porcorn Time VPN.” This far-reaching measure appears to have paid off as both parties have just informed the Virginia federal court that a settlement has been reached. Settlement With Blocking Requirements. No Logging!

article thumbnail

Court Denies Injunction in Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit–Nursing CE Central v. Colibri

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a competitive keyword advertising lawsuit. This is fine, but it deviates from courts’ efforts over the years to come up with multi-factor variations specific to keyword advertising. ” But the advertiser was engaging in comparative advertising, which I think also strongly serves the public interest.

article thumbnail

Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. That’s certainly true for high-profile and well-advertised consumer items like fast food chains, mass-market phones, and major car labels, but is it true in this particular niche? Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v.

article thumbnail

Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)–Reflex v. Luxy

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

There’s also a copyright claim for Luxy copying the plaintiff’s TOS/privacy policy. Plus, does this mean that rival apps can’t advertise themselves as rivals or engage in comparative advertising because the app stores aren’t properly labeling the ads, even if the advertisers are engaging in nominative use?

article thumbnail

1-800 Contacts Loses YET ANOTHER Trademark Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Ads–1-800 Contacts v. Warby Parker

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This week, another court added to 1-800 Contacts’ smouldering pile of trademark jurisprudence and granted a judgment on the pleadings (Rule 12(c)) dismissing 1-800 Contacts’ competitive keyword advertising lawsuit against its rival Warby Parker. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Keyword Ads. Proximity of goods.

Trademark 107