Defending Your Client's Domain Name
August 28, 2008
A company's domain name is often the most fundamental basis for trademark and branding efforts. Ideally, the choice of a domain name is made after conducting searches for potentially identical or confusing domains. But even if such due diligence is conducted, with the millions of domain names registered under the various extensions and country codes, it is not possible to guarantee that the domain name will not potentially conflict with someone else's trademark rights.
Use of Another's Trademark in Web Site Metatags
August 28, 2008
A metatag is a coding statement for a Web site in the Hypertext Markup Language that describes the site's content. The information provided in metatags can be used by search engines to determine Web page relevancy and to influence search results. In a surprising development, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has determined that the use of metatags in Web site code does not create initial interest confusion, because current search engines no longer use metatags to determine the relative relevance of a Web site, preferring instead to use algorithms that rank the Web sites by the number of other sites that link or point to them.
Auction Web Site Off the Hook
August 28, 2008
At one time or another, every trademark holder must deal with infringement on the Internet. After years of chasing individual infringers, many brand owners seek relief from those who provide the means for infringement. Yet these efforts have had limited success, at least in the United States. In some jurisdictions, search engines have avoided liability for sales of trademarks as keywords, under the doctrine of non-trademark use.
IP News
July 30, 2008
Recent developments you need to know.
<i>adidas v. Payless</i>
July 30, 2008
After almost seven years since inception, the lawsuit by adidas against Payless ShoeSource, Inc. ended at the trial level with a jury verdict against Payless in the amount of $305 million. Payless was found guilty of willful federal trademark and trade dress infringement, trademark and trade dress dilution, and state-law unfair and deceptive trade practices as a result of its sale of footwear bearing confusingly similar imitations of adidas's famous Three-Stripe Mark and Superstar Trade Dress.
<i>Quanta Computer, Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc.</i>
July 30, 2008
In <i>Quanta Computer</i>, many observers believed that the Court would address whether, and to what extent, a party can contractually restrict application of the patent exhaustion doctrine, under which patent rights covering a product are extinguished when the product is sold without restriction. Instead, the Court's decision in <i>Quanta</i> appears to be relatively narrow, confirming that the sale of unpatented components can exhaust a system patent that is substantially, but not completely, embodied by those components, but leaving open the broader question of whether parties can contractually limit application of the patent exhaustion doctrine to the detriment of downstream good faith purchasers.
IP News
June 27, 2008
Recent developments you need to know.
Lulu v. Hulu: What's All of the Hullabaloo?
June 27, 2008
While the rhyming nature of these two Web sites provided entertaining fodder for journalists and bloggers, in <i>Lulu Enterprises, Inc. v. N-F Newsite, LLC, aka Hulu, LLC, et. al</i>, the court focused its denial of Plaintiff Lulu's motion for preliminary injunction not on the rhyming nature of the domain names, but upon the Plaintiff's inability to prove imminent harm from the launch of Defendant's 'hulu.com' Web site. Rather than focusing on a likelihood of confusion analysis, the court's decision instead contains useful commentary on the effects of statements made in federal registration applications, and the likely expansion of the use of the mark, as they relate to the 'imminent harm' standard in trademark and unfair competition cases.
