Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Despite the surface simplicity of keyword advertising disputes (typically entailing unwanted use of the exact trademark of a direct competitor promoting competing goods or services) the web the courts have spun addressing such Web-based advertising has been anything but. Fortunately, the Second Circuit's April 3 decision in Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009) (on the one-year anniversary of oral argument), straightens at least some of the tangled seams by recognizing that keyword ads tied to a trademark do constitute a use in commerce of the subject mark. The Second Circuit thus agreed with arguments made by this author in numerous articles (including Virtual Trademark Use ' The Parallel World of Keyword Ads, 98 Trademark Rptr. 873 (May-June 2008)) that New York district courts, in a cluster of cases recognizing no such “use in commerce,” had mistakenly focused on the statutory definition of how an owner acquires bona fide rights in a mark in the first instance, rather than the statutory test of infringement. The previous week, a Massachusetts decision adopted much the same analysis. Hearts on Fire Co. v. Blue Nile, Inc., 2009 WL 794482 (D. Mass. March 27, 2009).
In rejecting the broad conceptual rule precluding liability for lack of use in commerce, the Second Circuit simply remanded without assessing substantive liability. It thus remains to be seen whether or to what extent the New York courts may now adopt any of the equally broad conceptual rules embraced by various other courts supporting findings of liability, including the theory of “initial interest confusion” or a pared down “Internet-only” version of the traditional test of infringement, under which keyword ads might well be deemed per se infringements of the marks to which they are keyed. See e.g., Storus Corp. v. Aroa Marketing, Inc., No. C-06-2454 (MMC), 2008 WL 449835 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2008) (discussed below).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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 real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.