US Court of Appeals Archives

US Court of Appeals

Let’s Not Get It On: Battle of the Greatest Hits

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Nov 14, 2024 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Ed Sheeran’s 2014 hit “Thinking Out Loud” does not infringe the copyright on Marvin Gaye’s 1973 classic “Let’s Get It On.” Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, Case No. 23-905 (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2024) (Calabresi, Parker, Park, JJ.)

In 1973, Ed Townsend and Marvin Gaye wrote the Motown hit “Let’s Get It On.” Townsend subsequently registered a copyright for the song’s melody, harmony, rhythm, and lyrics by sending the deposit copy of sheet music to the US Copyright Office. Townsend, Gaye, and Motown Records each held a one-third share in the copyright. Structured Asset Sales (SAS) purchases royalty interests from musical copyright holders, securitizes them, and sells the securities to other investors. SAS owns a one-ninth interest in the royalties from “Let’s Get It On.” Townsend’s remaining two-ninths share in the copyright is split between Kathryn Griffin, Helen McDonald, and the estate of Cherrigale Townsend.

In 2014 Ed Sheeran and Amy Wadge wrote the global chart-topper and Grammy-award-winning song “Thinking Out Loud.” In 2018, SAS brought a copyright infringement suit against Sheeran, Wadge, and various entities that produced, licensed, and distributed “Thinking Out Loud” (collectively, Sheeran). SAS alleged similarities in harmonies, drums, bass lines, tempos, and chord progression combined with anticipation (harmonic rhythm). SAS’s lawsuit followed the Griffin/McDonald/estate of Cherrigale Townsend’s 2017 lawsuit against Sheeran (Griffin lawsuit) alleging materially similar claims.

The district court determined that SAS’s infringement claim was limited to the scope of Townsend’s registration as reflected in the deposit copy (i.e., the sheet music) and excluded the sound recording of “Let’s Get It On.” As evidence that the songs were similar, SAS’s expert witness testified that the “Let’s Get It On” deposit copy included an inferred bass line that matched the bass line in Gaye’s sound recording of “Let’s Get It On” and the bass line in “Thinking Out Loud.” The district court rejected this testimony, concluding that “copyright law protects only that which is literally expressed, not that which might be inferred or possibly derived from what is expressed.”

The district court then denied Sheeran’s two motions for summary judgment without prejudice, determining that whether chord progression and harmonic rhythm in “Let’s Get It On” demonstrated sufficient originality and creativity to warrant copyright protection was a factual question to be determined at trial. Sheeran filed a motion for reconsideration. After the jury in the Griffin lawsuit found that Sheeran did not infringe the “Let’s Get It On” copyright, the district court granted Sheeran’s motion for reconsideration and concluded that “[t]here is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants infringed the protected elements of [‘Let’s Get It On’]. The answer is that they did not.” SAS appealed.

SAS argued that the district court erred in limiting the evidence SAS could present to support its infringement claim and in granting summary judgment in favor of Sheeran. The Second Circuit rejected both arguments.

The Second Circuit explained that excluding the audio recording of “Let’s Get It On” was not error because the 1909 Copyright Act protects [...]

Continue Reading

Moving to Recuse? Too Little, Too Late

by Lois D. Mermelstein | Nov 14, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that waiting until well after an adverse summary judgment motion to move for a district court judge’s recusal is untimely and moot, especially where an appeal from the adverse decision is already filed and where the recusal motion is based on public information. Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC, et al., Case No. 22-1526 (Fed Cir. Nov. 1, 2024) (Taranto, Prost, Reyna, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

Cellspin filed a complaint for patent infringement against Fitbit and others in October 2017. In February 2021, Fitbit amended its corporate disclosure statement to reflect the completion of its acquisition by Google (an indirect subsidiary of Alphabet). Almost a year later, in January 2022, Fitbit and the other defendants moved for summary judgment of noninfringement in their respective cases, and in June 2022, the district court granted summary judgment.

Months later, in January 2023, after the grant of summary judgment and the filing of notices of appeal from that grant, Cellspin filed a motion to recuse the district court judge based on the judge’s mutual fund investments that were likely to invest in Google. The consulting firm for which the judge’s husband worked also sold Google services, but the judge’s spouse did not do work for Google. The district court denied the motion on the merits as untimely and because the district court lacked authority to vacate the summary judgment that was already on appeal.

Applying Ninth Circuit law and reviewing for abuse of discretion, the Federal Circuit found that Cellspin’s behavior in waiting until well after it had lost on summary judgment, and almost two years after Google’s acquisition of Fitbit became final, “raises obvious concerns of lack of equity and strategic misuse of recusal.” The sources Fitbit cited for the judge’s spouse and the activities of the spouse’s employer were also public well before the summary judgment motion was granted, as were the judge’s financial disclosures.

While there is no specific time limit for seeking recusal, the Federal Circuit (citing its 1989 decision in Polaroid v. Eastman Kodak) noted that “timeliness is a well-established consideration in application of the [recusal] statute. In deciding motions to vacate orders issued by an allegedly disqualified judge, the courts have used ‘untimely’ as a synonym for ‘unfair’ when the circumstances, like those present here, are such that a grant of the motion would produce a result inequitable, unjust, and unfair.”

The Federal Circuit also noted that the risk of injustice to the parties from denying vacatur would also be essentially nonexistent here because the Federal Circuit’s concurrent holding on the summary judgment appeal against other defendants had preclusive effect, resolving Cellspin’s infringement assertions against Fitbit as well.

Practice Note: Any motion for recusal should be promptly filed when grounds for the motion become apparent.

“Conquesting”: Use of Rival’s Name as Keyword Search Term Isn’t Actionable Under Lanham Act

by Karen Gover | Nov 7, 2024 | Trademarks

Noting how rare it is for trademark infringement cases to be decided on summary judgment, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment finding that the plaintiff law firm failed to establish a likelihood of consumer confusion by virtue of the defendant’s purchase of a keyword search term. Lerner & Rowe PC v. Brown, Engstrand & Shely, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-16060 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024) (Desai, de Alba, JJ.; Chen, Dist. J, sitting by designation) (Desai, J., concurring).

The parties in this matter are rival personal injury law firms based in Arizona. Lerner & Rowe, PC, is the larger of the two firms. It has 19 offices and has spent more than $100 million promoting its brand and trademarks in the state. Brown, Engstrand & Shely, LLC, does business as The Accident Law Group (ALG). From 2015 to 2021, ALG engaged in an internet advertising strategy called “conquesting,” whereby companies promote themselves to potential customers who search for a competitor on the internet. ALG purchased the term “Lerner & Rowe” as a keyword search term so that whenever someone searched for that term, ALG’s advertisements would appear near the top of the search results list. The ALG advertisements themselves never included the term “Lerner & Rowe.”

In 2021 Lerner & Rowe filed a complaint alleging federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims. In 2023 the district court granted summary judgment in favor of ALG as to the trademark infringement and unjust enrichment claims but denied summary judgment on the unfair competition claims. ALG moved for reconsideration, and the district court subsequently granted summary judgment as to all the claims. Lerner & Rowe appealed.

Because there was no dispute that Lerner & Rowe had a protectable interest in its marks, the Ninth Circuit’s trademark infringement analysis focused on assessing the likelihood of consumer confusion. At issue here was “initial interest confusion,” confusion that arises when an alleged infringer uses a competitor’s mark to direct attention to its own product. The Ninth Circuit used the four-factor test articulated in its 2011 decision in Network Automation v. Advanced Sys. Concepts to analyze likelihood of confusion in a keyword advertising context:

Strength of the mark.
Evidence of actual confusion.
Type of goods and degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser.
Labeling and appearance of the advertisements and the surrounding context on the screen displaying the results page.

Other less relevant factors include “the proximity of the goods, similarity of the marks, marketing channels used, defendant’s intent in selecting the mark, and likelihood of expansion of the product lines.”

The Ninth Circuit found, and ALG did not dispute, that Lerner & Rowe’s mark was strong, but the Court concluded that the other three factors favored ALG. As to evidence of actual confusion, Lerner & Rowe offered 236 phone calls received by ALG in which the caller mentioned Lerner & Rowe by name when asked [...]

Continue Reading

Equivalence Requires Element-by-Element Proof With Linking Argument

by Tessa Kroll | Nov 7, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court determination that a patent owner had not provided the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, Case No. 2022-1815 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024) (Chen, Taranto, JJ.) (Reyna, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In his dissent, Judge Reyna criticized the majority for ignoring the totality of the evidence presented by the patent owner and imposing a new rule requiring patentees to always present expert testimony to prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

NexStep owns a patent directed to a “concierge device” for assisting users with obtaining customer support for smart devices. The claims are directed to a concierge device that initiates a technical support session in response to “a single action” (i.e., a single button press) by a user. After the claimed “single action,” the concierge device conveys consumer device identification information for the product at issue, identifies an appropriate technical support team for the product, and causes the home gateway to initiate a support session for the device and forward the consumer device information during the session.

NexStep sued Comcast for patent infringement, asserting that three tools in Comcast’s mobile smartphone application infringed the concierge device patent: Xfinity Assistant, Troubleshooting Card, and Diagnostic Check. Each of these tools assists users with troubleshooting a given device in response to the user pressing a series of buttons on a smartphone’s display. At trial, NexStep argued that pressing a series of buttons literally met the single action limitation because a single action could comprise a series of steps. By way of illustration, NexStep’s expert explained that throwing a baseball – a single action – required multiple steps: “[W]hen you throw a baseball, you pick it up, you orient it, you get it in your palm, you throw it.”

The jury returned a verdict of no literal infringement but found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Comcast moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court granted after finding that NexStep had failed to offer the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence. NexStep appealed.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that the doctrine of equivalents provides a “limited exception” to the principle that the claim defines the scope of the patentee’s exclusivity rights, and that a finding under the doctrine of equivalents is “exceptional.” To guard against overbroad applications of this exception, the Court’s precedent imposes specific evidentiary requirements necessary to prove infringement under the doctrine. The patent owner must provide proof on an element-by-element basis and from the perspective of someone skilled in the art, “for example through testimony of experts or others versed in the technology; by documents . . . and . . . by the disclosures of the prior art.” Finally, the patent owner must provide “particularized testimony and linking argument as to the insubstantiality of the differences between the claimed invention and the [...]

Continue Reading

Can’t Stop the FRAND: Navigating SEP Licensing Disputes

by Lois D. Mermelstein | Nov 7, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s decision to deny an antisuit injunction prohibiting a patent owner from enforcing injunctions that it obtained in Columbia and Brazil on standard essential patents (SEPs). Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, et al. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Case No. 24-1515 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024) (Prost, Lourie, Reyna, JJ.)

Lenovo and Ericsson entered into negotiations to cross-license their SEPs to each other. SEPs are patents declared essential to complying with a technical standard. Because SEPs by definition must be practiced to comply with a given standard, SEP holders wield significant power over standard implementers during licensing negotiations. Standard setting organizations therefore typically have an intellectual property policy under which SEP holders agree to license their SEPs on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. Here, the parties agreed that the FRAND commitment was a contract, governed by French law, that each party could enforce against the other, and that the FRAND commitment included an obligation to negotiate in good faith over licenses to SEPs.

After the parties were unsuccessful in reaching agreement, Ericsson sued Lenovo in US district court alleging that Lenovo infringed four of Ericsson’s US SEPs related to the 5G wireless communication standard. Ericsson also alleged that Lenovo breached its FRAND commitment by failing to negotiate in good faith and asked the district court to determine a FRAND rate for a global cross-license between the parties. Lenovo counterclaimed, alleging that Ericsson infringed four of Lenovo’s 5G US SEPs and asking for a similar outcome. Lenovo also asked the district court to enter an antisuit injunction prohibiting Ericsson from enforcing the preliminary injunctions Ericsson obtained in Colombia and Brazil that prohibited Lenovo from infringing Ericsson’s Columbian and Brazilian 5G SEPs. The district court denied Lenovo’s motion, following the antisuit injunction framework in the Ninth Circuit’s 2012 decision in Microsoft v. Motorola. The district court concluded that the instant suit was not dispositive of the foreign action, which was a threshold requirement to enter such an injunction. Lenovo appealed.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court’s determination, finding that a party with a FRAND commitment must negotiate in good faith over a license to its SEPs before it pursues injunctive relief based on those SEPs. Interpreting the “dispositive” requirement, the Court concluded that the “requirement can be met even though a foreign antisuit injunction would resolve only a foreign injunction (and not the entire foreign proceeding), and even though the relevant resolution depends on the potential that one party’s view of the facts or law prevails in the domestic suit.” Here, the Court found that the requirement was met because the “FRAND commitment precludes Ericsson from pursuing SEP-based injunctive relief unless it has first complied with the commitment’s obligation to negotiate in good faith over a license to those SEPs.” If the district court were to determine that Ericsson had not complied with that obligation, that determination would dictate the impropriety of Ericsson pursuing SEP-based injunctive relief. Accordingly, the [...]

Continue Reading

Promises, Promises: Covenant Not to Sue for Patent Infringement Includes Downstream Users

by Karen Gover | Oct 31, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed that a district court did not err in applying ordinary rules of contract construction to a covenant not to sue and properly found that under the patent exhaustion doctrine, the covenant encompassed downstream users. Fuel Automation Station, LLC v. Energera Inc., Case Nos. 23-1123; -1358 (10th Cir. Oct. 21, 2024) (Carson, Rossman, Federico, JJ.)

Fuel Automation Station (FAS) and Energera compete in the manufacture of automated fuel delivery equipment and related services. Energera holds patents related to its fuel delivery equipment. In 2016 and 2018, Energera sued FAS, alleging that it infringed two of its patents. The parties resolved the suits with a single settlement agreement in 2019. The agreement described the scope of the patent rights at issue and provided mutual covenants not to sue.

Less than a year later, FAS contracted with a Canadian corporation to operate its fuel automation equipment. Energera sued the Canadian corporation for infringement of one of its patents. FAS intervened, then separately sued Energera seeking a declaration that the covenant not to sue authorized FAS to sell or lease its own equipment and, therefore, the patent exhaustion doctrine prohibited Energera from suing downstream users, such as the Canadian corporation. FAS also brought two breach of contract claims asserting that Energera violated the settlement agreement and its included covenant since it was prohibited from suing the Canadian corporation for downstream use or from suing or “otherwise engag[ing]” FAS in legal proceedings.

FAS moved for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment count, which the district court granted. However, the court denied both parties’ later motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the settlement agreement covered the asserted patent, finding that an ambiguity in the agreement created genuine issues of material fact. A jury subsequently found that the agreement did cover the asserted patent and that Energera breached the covenant. Energera appealed.

After first determining that the district court’s summary judgment ruling was an appealable legal ruling on the issue of the scope of the covenant, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court correctly interpreted the covenant to include downstream users. In the covenant, Energera promised “not to sue [FAS] or otherwise engage [FAS] in any domestic or foreign legal or administrative proceeding” related to the Patent Rights. Citing dictionary definitions of “engage” in its analysis, the Tenth Circuit found that the term “otherwise engage” reasonably could show the parties’ intent to prohibit Energera from suing FAS’s downstream users. The Court then invoked the patent exhaustion doctrine, which it called “the brooding omnipresence in the sky of patent law.” The Court explained that if a patent holder promises not to sue an entity for patent infringement when the entity sells or leases an item, “the doctrine recognizes an inherent promise not to sue downstream users of those items.” Otherwise, the Court pointed out, no reasonable customer would want to buy or lease a patented item from an authorized seller.

As to whether the [...]

Continue Reading

Pre-Markman Claim Construction Is OK, Within Limits

by Sydney E. McDermott | Oct 31, 2024 | Patents

In an appeal stemming from the denial of a preliminary injunction and dismissal of the complaint, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified its precedent and explained that a district court may construe claims at the motion to dismiss Rule 12(b)(6) stage, but only to the extent necessary to decide the motion. UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., Case No. 23-1435 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2024) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

UTTO sued Metrotech in the US District Court for the Northern District of California for patent infringement and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage under California law. UTTO also moved for a preliminary injunction. The asserted patent describes and claims methods for detecting and identifying “buried assets,” which refers to underground utility lines. The district court denied the preliminary injunction because of UTTO’s failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits for infringement based on the district court’s construction. The district court adopted a construction of the term “group” as requiring at least two data points per buried asset. The district court then dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted but allowed UTTO to amend, explaining that infringement of the claims as construed at the preliminary injunction stage was not pled.

UTTO then filed an amended complaint, which the district court also dismissed, noting that UTTO failed to plead facts supporting infringement of other limitations under the claim construction issued at the preliminary injunction stage. The district court again granted UTTO leave to amend, which UTTO did. But the district court dismissed that third complaint as well, this time with prejudice, citing the claim construction in its order at the preliminary injunction stage.

On appeal, UTTO (citing 2018 Federal Circuit precedent Nalco v. Chem-Mod) challenged the district court’s claim construction and its reliance on a claim construction in an order denying summary judgment to dismiss a complaint. The Federal Circuit explained that claim construction by a district court “to resolve . . . particular claim construction issues in [a] case” may be necessary and is not categorically barred at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. The Court explained that there is a “logical relationship of claim construction” between “infringement and the normal function of courts deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” An infringement analysis first requires an analysis of the scope and meaning of the claims asserted and then the “properly construed claims” are compared to the accused device or method. Often, claims are construed based on intrinsic evidence alone, which the Federal Circuit concluded “is not different in kind from the interpretation of other legal standards, which is proper and routine in ruling on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6).” As an example, the Court cited its routine dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) in connection with motions under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The Federal Circuit cautioned that not all claim construction issues need to be construed at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, but only those issues necessary to decide a [...]

Continue Reading

If Provider Knew Product Would Be Used to Infringe, It Is a Contributor

by Lois D. Mermelstein | Oct 24, 2024 | Copyrights

In a case brought by a group of record labels against an internet service provider (ISP) for contributory copyright infringement of more than 1,400 songs, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the provider, which knew how its product would be used by subscribers, could be contributorily liable for its subscribers’ actions, but that because the record companies registered albums – not individual songs – with the US Copyright Office, statutory copyright damages were not available for each infringed song. UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. v. Grande Communications Networks, LLC, Case No. 23-50162 (5th Cir. Oct. 9, 2024) (Higginson, Higginbotham, Stewart, JJ.)

The plaintiffs are a group of major record labels, while the defendant, Grande Communications Network, is a large ISP. To combat copyright infringement among individuals using peer-to-peer file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent, the plaintiffs used a third-party company, Rightscorp, to identify infringing conduct by engaging with BitTorrent users, documenting that conduct, and using the information to notify ISPs of its findings so that the ISPs could take appropriate action. However, for nearly seven years Grande did not terminate subscribers for copyright infringement but merely notified them of a complaint. In the district court, a jury found Grande liable for contributory copyright infringement of more than 1,400 of the plaintiffs’ sound recordings. The jury found that the infringement was willful and awarded nearly $47 million in statutory damages. Grande appealed.

The Fifth Circuit explained that to prove direct infringement by Grande’s subscribers, the plaintiffs had to show “(1) that Plaintiffs own or have exclusive control over valid copyrights and (2) that those copyrights were directly infringed by Grande’s subscribers.” To meet the elements of secondary liability for subscribers’ conduct, “Plaintiffs had to demonstrate (3) that Grande had knowledge of its subscribers’ infringing activity and (4) that Grande induced, caused, or materially contributed to that activity.”

In analyzing the fourth element, the Fifth Circuit noted that previous Supreme Court cases involving a single moment of sale (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios (1984) and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster (2005)) did not control because the plaintiffs’ theory of liability was “not based on Grande’s knowledge about its subscribers’ likely future activities after the moment of sale, but rather on Grande’s knowledge of its subscribers’ actual infringements based on its ongoing relationship with those subscribers.” Further, unlike Twitter v. Taamneh (2023) (a case in which family members of an ISIS terrorist attack victim alleged that US social media companies aided and abetted ISIS by permitting the group’s members to use the platforms for ISIS’s purposes), here the “direct nexus between Grande’s conduct and the tort at issue permits an inference that Grande’s knowing provision of internet services to infringing subscribers was actionable.”

The district court’s jury instructions – that Grande could be contributorily liable if Grande could have “take[n] basic measures to prevent further damages to copyrighted works, yet intentionally continue[d] to provide access to infringing sound recordings,” were not erroneous, as Grande had access to [...]

Continue Reading

Jurisdiction “Found”: Navigating E-Commerce Boundaries in Copyright Disputes

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | Oct 24, 2024 | Copyrights

In a copyright case, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that the district court had jurisdiction over two Chinese companies that consented to jurisdiction in any judicial district in which a third-party e-commerce company could be “found.” The Tenth Circuit concluded that whether an e-commerce company is “found” in a district for purposes of jurisdiction is determined based on whether its officers or agents carry out the company’s business there, not on the manner in which it does business. DP Creations, LLC v. Adolly.com, Case No. 23-4126 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 2024) (Tymkovich, Bacharach, Carson, JJ.)

As background, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) “preserve[d] strong incentives for service providers and copyright owners to cooperate and detect and deal with copyright infringements that take place in the digital networked environment.” After a copyright owner notifies a service provider of an infringement, the service provider can avoid liability for a subscriber’s copyright infringement if the service provider expeditiously moves or disables access to the allegedly infringing material and notifies the subscriber of such actions taken. Under Section 512(g)(3)(D) of the DMCA, a subscriber with an address outside the United States may have the material replaced by submitting a written counter-notification to the service provider that includes a statement that the “subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court . . . for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found.”

DP Creations, d/b/a Bountiful Baby, is a copyright owner for reborn doll sculptures. Bountiful Baby notified a third-party e-commerce company (service provider) that two Chinese companies (subscribers), including Adolly, were selling counterfeit copies of reborn dolls through the e-commerce company. The e-commerce company took down the infringing materials, and Adolly submitted counter-notifications, including consent to personal jurisdiction in “any judicial district in which [the e-commerce company] may be found and agreeing to accept service of process from” Bountiful Baby. Bountiful Baby subsequently filed a copyright infringement action in the District of Utah. After the Chinese companies failed to respond, the district court denied the motion for entry of default judgment against the defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. In construing the scope of jurisdiction under § 512(g)(3)(D), the district court used Black’s Law Dictionary to understand the plain meaning of “found” and required Bountiful Baby to show that the e-commerce company did business in Utah such that it was subject to suit and service of process there. Bountiful Baby appealed.

Because § 512(g)(3)(D)’s phrase “may be found” is not defined in the statute, the Tenth Circuit (like the district court) undertook to construe the ordinary meaning of the phrase. The Court decided against using the definition found in Black’s to construe the meaning of “found” as it relates to service of process on corporations that are not a subscriber of the involved service provider. The Court concluded that in cases where the service provider is not a resident of the forum state and potentially not “at home” in the forum state, Black’s [...]

Continue Reading

Clear Vision: Keyword Search Term Purchase Doesn’t Blur Trademark Lines

by Eleanor B. Atkins | Oct 17, 2024 | Trademarks

Addressing the issue of trademark infringement based on the purchase of search advertising keywords, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joined the consensus view and upheld a district court decision finding that the mere purchase of a search advertising keyword containing another’s trademark does not by itself constitute trademark infringement. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. JAND, Inc., Case No. 22-1634 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2024) (Chin, Carney, Lee, JJ.)

1-800 Contacts is an established online retailer for contact lenses. JAND (doing business as Warby Parker) was originally an online retailer for eyeglasses and began selling contact lenses online as well in 2019. As a newcomer to the market of online contact lenses, Warby Parker purchased search advertising keywords that included 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks. This practice is known as search keyword advertising, and it is a type of marketing that allows parties to purchase certain terms from search engines that, when used as a search query, result in the paying party’s advertisements appearing above the organic search results as part of the “paid results.”

1-800 Contacts sued Warby Parker for engaging in this practice, alleging that the purchase and use of 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal and New York state law. The district court disagreed, granting Warby Parker’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and finding that 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks and the “Warby Parker” trademark were entirely dissimilar. 1-800 Contacts appealed.

1-800 Contacts argued that Warby Parker purchased search engine keyworks consisting of 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks to use them in connection with an adverting campaign designed to mislead consumers. 1-800 Contacts alleged that the purchase of these keywords resulted in consumer confusion because users searching for “1-800 contacts” would receive Warby Parker’s “ambiguous ads that generate source, sponsorship or initial interest confusion.” 1-800 Contacts further alleged that the webpage that was linked to Warby Parker’s advertisements “magnified this confusion” because it mimicked the look and feel of 1-800 Contacts’ website.

The Second Circuit noted that two types of consumer confusion were at issue in the case: sponsorship confusion, which occurs when consumers believe “the mark’s owner sponsored or otherwise approved the use of the trademark,” and initial-interest confusion. To sufficiently plead internet-related initial-interest confusion, “a showing of intentional deception [is necessary] . . . because consumers diverted on the Internet can more readily get back on track that those in actual space.”

The Second Circuit reviewed the eight-factor Polaroid test to assess whether 1-800 Contacts sufficiently pled a likelihood of confusion. The Court agreed with the district court that certain factors, including the strength of the mark, the competitive proximity of the products, the relative quality of the products, and good faith, favored 1-800 Contacts. However, other factors, including, most importantly, the similarity of the marks, favored Warby Parker: “Here, the pleadings failed to plausibly allege that Warby Parker used 1-800’s Marks anywhere during the search advertising process outside of its purchase at the initial, permissible keyword auction. . . . Thus, the [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS