Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Google v. American Blind: Staying in Line with Online Advertising?
One of the hot intellectual property topics for 2005 ' and perhaps beyond ' is whether the sale and use of trademarks as keywords constitutes trademark infringement, and, if so, who is liable for that infringement. How the courts ultimately resolve this issue will affect the billion-dollar Internet advertising industry, those who participate in online advertising and those seeking to prevent the unauthorized use of their trademarks on the Internet. This article discusses Google v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2005), the most recent case to address the emerging issue of “markmatching” in Internet contextual advertising, and its relationship to trademark infringement.
In American Blind, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California denied Google's motion to dismiss a trademark infringement case involving Google's sale of American Blind's trademarks as keywords for Internet advertising. Google had filed an action seeking declaratory relief, claiming that use of its AdWords advertising program to sell American Blind trademarks and close variations thereof does not infringe American Blind's trademarks. American Blind counterclaimed, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, false representation, injury to business reputation, unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective business advantage, and in the alternative, contributory trademark infringement and dilution.
Through Google's AdWords program, advertisers may purchase or bid on certain keywords or phrases that also are trademarks. Essentially, AdWords matches contextual advertising with the end user (ie, the consumer) based on pre-selected terms, which can be a trademark. “Markmatching” is the process of linking competitors' trademarks with contextual advertising. The advertisers' links then will appear prominently when an Internet user enters those keywords into a search engine, which was precisely the case in American Blind.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?