Pop-up and Keyword Advertising

Scope

 * Use this page to list sources related to issues of trademark infringement involving pop-up or keyword advertising including Google AdWords cases. Sources related to cybersquatting, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and gripe sites should go instead on Cybersquatting, the UDRP, ACPA, and Gripe Sites.

News / Editorial

 * Kashmir Hill, How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did, Forbes (Feb. 16, 2012).
 * Thomas Claburn, Google Sued Over Past Toolbar Troubles, InformationWeek (Nov. 15, 2010).
 * Mike Masnick, Nearly Every Company That Hates Google Piles On To Rosetta Stone Case, Techdirt (Nov. 5, 2010).
 * Amir Efrati and Thomas Catan, Texas AG Probing Google's Searches, Wall Street Journal (Sep. 3, 2010) (Texas AG conducting antitrust review in response to lawsuits from other search engine providers, alleging they were unfairly demoted in Google's search rankings).
 * Catherine Boyle and Michael Herman, Google wins court victory over Louis Vuitton, The Times Online (Mar. 24, 2010).
 * Raphael G. Satter, Google likely to win EU court battle over ads, The Washington Post (Mar.19, 2010).
 * Tom Krazit, Rescuecom Drops Trademark Suit Against Google, CNet News (Mar.5, 2010).
 * Robin Wauters, Google Countersues Haircutter Company That Brought On AdWords Lawsuit, TechCrunch (Feb.20, 2010).
 * Eliot Van Buskirk, Teeth-Whitening Company Sues Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Others, The Inquirer (Nov 25, 2009). (Company that ran deceptive ads sues because competitors bought their trademark as search keywords, and used their ad designs.)
 * Jack Zemlicka, Wisconsin firms battle over Google searching, Wisconsin Law Journal (Nov 24, 2009). (This is interesting because the plaintiff does not allege trademark infringement but rather cites privacy law.)
 * Katie Allen, Google seeks to turn a profit from YouTube copyright clashes, The Guardian (Nov. 1, 2009). (Google using fingerprinting to let content owners run ads and link to sales on infringing content instead of removing it.)
 * Tom Kazit, Yahoo settles pay-per-click fraud suit, CNET News (Oct. 13, 2009).
 * Aoife White, EU adviser: Google ads don't infringe trademarks, SiliconValley.com (Sep. 22, 2009).
 * Microsoft sues over 'malicious' online advertising, SiliconValley.com (Sep. 18, 2009).
 * French court rules against eBay in counterfeiting case, SiliconValley.com (Sep. 18, 2009).
 * Nate Anderson, "Anonymized" data really isn't—and here's why not, Ars Technica (Sep. 8, 2009).
 * Cecilia Kang, Rosetta Stone Sues Google Over Trademarks in Searches, Washington Post (Jul. 11, 2009).
 * Tom Krazit, Google finally sued by makers of Finally Fast, CNET News (Jul. 2, 2009).

Legal Briefs / Opinions / Statutes

 * Partners for Health and Home v. Yang, No. CV 09-07849 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (Likely trademark infringement in keywords, website meta tags and YouTube keywords)
 * Fair Isaac Corp. v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., No. 06-4112, 2009 WL 4263699 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2009) (evidence did not support an inference that Experian's and Trans Union's purchases of Fair Isaac's trademarks as keyword search terms was likely to confuse consumers).
 * Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2009). (Trademark infringement suit against Google for confusion resulting from AdWords ads can go forward.)
 * Deltek, Inc. v. Iuvo Systems, Inc., No. 09-330, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33555, 2009 WL 1073196 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2009).
 * Hearts on Fire Co. v Blue Nile, Inc., 2009 WL 794482 (D. Mass. Mar. 27, 2009). (Blue Nile's use of Hearts On Fire's trademark as a search keyword is a "use" within Lanham, and Blue Nile's motion to dismiss was denied. If the search results can be shown to be likely to cause confusion, that would be infringement).
 * Romeo & Juliette Laser Hair Removal, Inc. v. Assara I LLC, 2009 WL 750195 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2009). (A third party ad manager uses Romeo & Juliette's non-trademarked marks on ads and hosted mirror site they created for competitor Assara, liability can't be proven against Assara with disputed facts.)
 * Mary Kay, Inc. v. Weber, 2009 WL 426470 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2009).
 * Suarez Corp. v. Earthwise, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92931 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2008).
 * Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
 * Designer Skin, LLC v. S & L Vitamins, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 2d 811 (D. Ariz. 2008).
 * Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc., No. 04-507, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18642, 2005 WL 1903128 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8 2005).
 * U-Haul Int'l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., No. 02-1469, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15710, 2003 WL 22071556 (E.D. Va. Sep. 5, 2003).

Scholarship

 * Kristin Kemnitzer, Beyond Rescuecom v. Google: The Future of Keyword Advertising, 25 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 401 (2010).
 * Benjamin Aitken, "Keyword-Linked Advertising, Trademark Infringement, and Google's Contributory Liability", 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 21 (2005) (Many keyword-linked ads are not infringing, but they advise Google to remove ads when notified of potential contributory infringement).
 * Nicholas Tyacke and Rohan Higgins, "Searching for trouble – keyword advertising and trade mark infringement", 20 Computer Law & Security Report 453 (2004).
 * Matthew A. Kaminer, "The limitations of trademark law in addressing trademark keyword banners", 16 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 35 (1999) (Trademark keyword banners should be seen as the Internet's version of comparative advertising, and prohibiting them would inhibit e-commerce).