Tag Archives: Diversion

Ninth Circuit. Keywords. Trademarks. Hike!

Originally posted 2011-03-11 17:23:32. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Here’s a roundup of what other people are saying about the decision in Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced System Concepts, Inc. involving keyword advertising using other folks’ trademarks (a form of the dreaded “diversion“!) and perhaps implicating secondary liability for trademark infringement:

Well, that’s almost all the roundup you need!  In fact, here’s the “takeaway” of Eric’s post:

9th Circuit court building with sign

We’ve had surprisingly few appellate decisions involving keyword advertising generally, and almost none involving trademark owners’ lawsuits against keyword advertisers (as opposed to suing keyword sellers like search engines). On that basis alone, this ruling is important. The case is also remarkable because the opinion, written by highly regarded Judge Wardlaw, gets so many things right.
Perhaps that sounds like damning with faint praise, but the reality is that the Ninth Circuit’s Internet trademark law has become horribly tortured due to deeply flawed opinions like the 1999 Brookfield case. This opinion deftly cuts through the accumulated doctrinal cruft and lays a nice foundation for future Internet trademark jurisprudence.
The only sour note is that the opinion makes some unnecessary and empirically shaky “presumptions”–exactly the kind of unfortunate appellate court fact-finding that got the Ninth Circuit into trouble into the first place. Still, given how this opinion could have turned out, I still give this opinion very high marks.
Yeah, Eric is great on that “presumption” stuff — and how badly judges wing them when it comes to trademark.  And Rebecca?

Read More…

Aw, shucks

We already covered the Designer Skin v. S&L Vitamins summary judgment decision, and linked to commentators Greg Beck, Bill Patry, Rebecca Tushnet, Eric Goldman and Jason Lee Miller.

But it’s positively nerve-wracking reading the commentary of someone like Evan Brown! 😉

Best of 2008: Which exit did we get off, again?

Posted on September 7, 2008.

Well, maybe we’ve been too hard on the Democrats here at LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®.  Perhaps unlike the GOP, they’ve got good, progressive IP counsel out there, and maybe an Obama Administration will take a more realistic view of what you can and can’t do on the Internet.  At least we know they don’t have any hangups about “deceptive key word advertising” or “Internet traffic diversion,” the modern bugaboos of Internet trademark litigation.  Turns out they think those things are pretty keen!

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

Above is a screen shot (click for full size) of a search result you got if you searched Google for SARAH PALIN SPEECH on Saturday night — note the sponsored link on top, in color, that links to the Democratic Convention website, DemConvention.com:

The link tells Internet users they’re going to a page called DemCovention.com/RNC.  Wow, are they showing the Palin speech in order to get you to compare it critically to what the DNC has to offer?  It’s comparison shopping, right?  A modern-day Miracle on 34th Street!

Well, no.  Here’s what you actually get: Read More…

Best of 2008: The Long and Rocky Road

This was first posted on May 7, 2008.
beatle_icecreamIrvin Robbins, the co-founder of the Baskin-Robbins ice cream chain, died yesterday. Here’s how much time has passed since just about the time your blogger was born, in ice cream marketing years:

When the Beatles were to arrive in the United States in 1964, a reporter called to ask whether Baskin-Robbins was going to commemorate the event with a new flavor.

Robbins didn’t have a flavor planned but quickly replied, “Uh, Beatle Nut, of course.”

The flavor was created, manufactured and delivered in just five days, according to the Web site.

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

Hah! Can you imagine? Without a sponsorship deal!

“Diversion!” “Free riding!” “Initial interest confusion!” “LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®!” And, of course, “Dilution!”

No…. none of those things. Just tribute. And, yes, a little profit too. The Beatles… probably didn’t miss it. They were a musical act, and song writers, interested in rhythm and blues, not sprinkles and scoops.

We’re not against intellectual property here.

Read More…

Best of 2008: The Long and Rocky Road

This was first posted on May 7, 2008.

Irvin Robbins, the co-founder of the Baskin-Robbins ice cream chain, died yesterday. Here’s how much time has passed since just about the time your blogger was born, in ice cream marketing years:

When the Beatles were to arrive in the United States in 1964, a reporter called to ask whether Baskin-Robbins was going to commemorate the event with a new flavor.

Robbins didn’t have a flavor planned but quickly replied, “Uh, Beatle Nut, of course.”

The flavor was created, manufactured and delivered in just five days, according to the Web site.

Hah! Can you imagine? Without a sponsorship deal! “Diversion!” “Free riding!” “Initial interest confusion!”beatle_icecream “LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®!” And, of course, “Dilution!”

No…. none of those things. Just tribute. And, yes, a little profit too. The Beatles… probably didn’t miss it. They were a musical act, and song writers, interested in rhythm and blues, not sprinkles and scoops.

We’re not against intellectual property here. Not at all. But there was a time when you could have a little fun, even in business, doing something that sounds like “trading on” the name and fame of the phenomena of public life without having to fear cadres of IP lawyers demanding cessation and desistence, claiming confusion as to source-sponsorship-or-affiliation, and reserving all rights on fancy colored letterhead delivered simultaneously by certified mail / RRR and PDF via email.

As any Beatle Nut knows, today the Beatles-inspired theme of big-IP rent-maximizing business would be what Bungalow Bill‘s mom told the children when they asked those uncomfortable questions: “If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him!”

Sounds good to me! Preliminary injunction granted!

Judge: “Go after your distributors, not free enterprise”

Quality KingJudges — especially in the Eastern District of New York — are picking up what’s going on in the “elite salons” end of the trademarks-as-distribution-method-enforcement scam.  Ever hear of Quality King?  Says Forbes:

Quality King Distributors has grown from a small shop in Queens, New York to a large distributor of pharmaceuticals and health and beauty care products. The company re-imports exported U.S.-branded over-the-counter pharmaceuticals and personal care products and sells them at deep discounts. Clients include drugstore and supermarket chains, grocery distributors, wholesale clubs and mass-merchant discounters. Glenn Nussdorf and his wife started Quality King in 1961, and the Nussdorf family still owns the company.

That can’t stand, can it?  Well, maybe it can:

A federal judge has blasted the L’oreal company, and former federal law enforcement officials it employs, for trying to bolster what he said was a very weak civil case by attempting to get former Justice Department colleagues to prosecute criminally a longtime business opponent. …

U.S. District Judge Leonard Wexler in Central Islip recently ruled against Paris- and New York-based L’oreal in a 2004 civil lawsuit brought by the company against Ronkonkoma-based Quality King Distributors, a $3-billion-a-year distributor of hair-care and other products, as well as its spinoff company, N.J.-based Pro’s Choice. The suit was the most recent round of an ongoing 17-year legal battle between L’oreal and Quality King.

L’oreal sought in its suit the enforcement of a 1990 injunction that barred Quality King and Pro’s Choice from buying and reselling an upscale line of hair shampoos and conditioners, sold by L’oreal under the names Matrix and ARTec.

That should be good enough, right?  Well, not if Judge Wexler smells baloney: Read More…

Online use of trademarks and copyrights by “unauthorized distributors”

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION does not generally comment about active cases in which we are directly involved. But a very important and detailed (61 pages!) summary judgment decision came down in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York last week, in the case of S & L Vitamins, Inc. v. Australian Gold, Inc., 2:05-cv-1217 in which I represent the plaintiff. And while we will not comment on the decision, for obvious reasons, any reader of this blog involved in trademarks and the Internet will want to read it. So here it is. Credit to David Nieporent, co-author on the plaintiff’s brief!

UPDATE: Cogent commentary from Eric Goldman and Matthew Sag; now comes Rebecca Tushnet.

U.S. District of Arizona: “No automatic injunction upon a finding of copyright infringement”

Not that the plaintiffs in the Designer Skin case didn’t get an injunction:  They did (here it is); a narrow one utilizing proposed language by defendants explicitly permitting S&L to use its own photographs of Designer Skin merchandise on its website (see the prior post).  But the Court ruled that they were not entitled to it merely by virtue of proving copyright infringement.  Here’s an excerpt from the opinion, discussing the point:

The parties dispute the law governing the issuance of a permanent injunction in a copyright-infringement case. Relying on MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993), Designer Skin argues that “a permanent injunction [should] be granted in a copyright infringement case when liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing violations.”  Conversely, S & L Vitamins argues that the MAI rule has been overruled by the recent Supreme Court opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), and that the traditional four-factor test reaffirmed by eBay applies.

MAI’s general rule may accurately describe the result of applying the four-factor test to a copyright-infringement case in which liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing violations. Nevertheless, as Judge Wilson persuasively demonstrated in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 518 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1209-10 (C.D. Cal. 2007), this general rule, as a rule, is clearly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay. Thus, for the reasons given by Judge White in Grokster, Designer Skin’s reliance on this pre-eBay rule is unavailing, and the Court will apply the traditional four-factor test. . . .

This is an important holding, making the District of Arizona among the handful of earliest courts to apply the rule of eBay to copyright infringement.  After the jump, you can see how the court did apply it to one particular factor of interest, the need for a plaintiff seeking an injunction to prove irreparable harm.  The court agreed with S&L that past infringement does not lead to a presumption of future infringement. Unfortunately, to our client’s (nominal) detriment, and despite our argument that, seeing as how Designer Skin enunciated no coherent description of harm it suffered by the infringement — and that, in fact, it probably benefited from it — an injunction should not issue, the court found that there was irreparable harm, for reasons best expressed in its own words. Read More…

Fat lady sings: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in Designer Skin v S & L Vitamins

The District of Arizona ruled today in a case we defended through trial and have reported on here extensively.  The decision is here; the minute entry on the electronic docket reads as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW – that S & L Vitamins has infringed Designer Skin’s copyrights in the electronic renderings of the 42 products styled [by various brand names] and that Designer Skin is entitled to a permanent injunction enjoining S & L Vitamins from any such future infringement of these copyrights;

FURTHER ORDERED that S & L Vitamins has not infringed Designer Skin’s copyrights in the electronic renderings of the 12 products styled [by various brand names];

FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs in this matter.

Signed by Judge James A Teilborg

No attorneys’ fees for either side.  The injunction reads as follows (per the minute entry); prefatory language is omitted and emphasis is added:

FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION in favor of Designer Skin, LLC against S&L Vitamins, Inc. . . . S & L Vitamins . . . are hereby immediately and permanently ENJOINED from publicly displaying, using, copying, or otherwise infringing Designer Skin’s copyrights in these electronic renderings for any purpose whatsoever. Nothing herein, however, shall be construed to enjoin S & L Vitamins from taking, using, or displaying original photographs of the physical Products themselves in connection with S & L Vitamins’ sale of the Products on the internet.

Signed by Judge James A Teilborg

Interested persons may wish to ponder how, and to what extent, the Court addressed the issues framed by the counsel for the respective parties, including identification of what indeed are “Designer Skin’s copyrights in [its] electronic renderings,” by considering the proposed findings and facts and conclusions of law submitted by the plaintiffs, and by the defendants, respectively.

For practitioners interested in the law of injunctions, the most interesting part of the decision concerns the court’s application of the rule in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) that there is no automatic entitlement to an injunction upon a finding of infringement to a copyright infringement case.  We have made a separate post addressing that part of the decision.

S&L’s website is here, by the way.  Buy Designer Skin lotion from S&L!  It’s the way both sides pay their lawyers!

Google, Geico Good to Go

Google and Geico have settled.