Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Use Of Trademarks To Trigger Internet Advertising
On Feb. 7, 2006, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of trademark infringement in favor of manufacturers of tanning lotions against several unauthorized distributors. The defendants had paid for preferential search engine listings when computer users searched for plaintiffs' trademarks and has also placed plaintiffs' trademarks in the metatags of their Web sites (metatags are internal Web site coding often used by search engines to identify the content of Web sites). Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield, 436 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2006).
Without separately addressing the different potential bases of liability, the court reasoned that overall, defendants had violated the Lanham Act by using 'the goodwill associated with Plaintiffs' trademarks in such a way that consumers might be lured' to their products, instead of going to authorized sellers. Id. at 1239.
While courts have been generally hostile to companies using competitors' trademarks as metatags in order to attract customers (see, eg, Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999); Promatek Industries, Ltd. v. Equitrac Corporation, 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2002)), the use of competitors' trademarks to trigger advertisements in the form of sponsored links or pop-up advertisements is an issue that remains unsettled. In conflating liability for the preferential search result listings and the use of trademarks in metatags, the Australian Gold court failed to significantly further this developing area of law. As discussed below, there has yet to develop a consensus among the courts regarding liability for one company using another company's trademarks to trigger Internet advertisements.
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?