Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2011 - Trademark Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


SELECT MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, LLC, ET AL. v. D AND D MARKETING, INC. and DMITRY FOMICHEV
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:10-CV-10008
FILED: 12/29/2010

There certainly exist some defenses to keying ads off of trademark names, although most courts find that this is trademark infringement. Using a competitor’s name in the title of an ad on AdWords, or even in the body of the ad, is close to a slam dunk situation for trademark infringement.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, a lead generation company and the owner of the company, are purchasing Plaintiff’s trademark name as a keyword to trigger its ad in the Google AdWords system, and is actually using the Plaintiff’s trademark name in the title of the advertisement. The Defendant is D and D Marketing, Inc. d/b/a T3Leads and is generating leads for the consumer lending industry.

Counts against Defendants include trademark infringement and unfair competition. Plaintiffs request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1460.


WILLIAM JAWORSKI d/b/a GREAT NORTHERN ENGINEERING v. ROBERT’S HOT TUBS, INC.
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
0:10-CV-04950
FILED: 12/22/2010

These “metatag” trademark infringement claims keep showing up in federal courts. There are many ways, obviously, to optimize a page so that it is a result when a competitor is searched. Google says it does not even pay attention to metadata anymore in terms of generating search results, so if this is true it is difficult to see how a claim is relevant anymore in today’s SEO world. It is likely that some search engines still use metadata for indexing purposes, but that represents an extremely small percentage of searches conducted.

Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors selling hot tubs and related services and supplies. The Defendant is alleged to have placed the Plaintiff’s trademarked names into “metatags” on its website in order to have its site appear in search results when its competitor’s name is searched.
The lawsuit claims trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violation of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff demands preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, statutory damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1461.