<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Mass Law Blog &#187; Lanham Act</title>
	<atom:link href="http://masslawblog.com/tag/lanham-act/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://masslawblog.com</link>
	<description>Lee Gesmer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:26:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=9924</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Second Circuit: Google Keyword Ad Practices Are &quot;Use in Commerce&quot;</title>
		<link>http://masslawblog.com/trademark/second-circuit-google-keyword-ad-practices-are-use-in-commerce/</link>
		<comments>http://masslawblog.com/trademark/second-circuit-google-keyword-ad-practices-are-use-in-commerce/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:24:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lee Gesmer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[key word search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lanham Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.masslawblog.com/?p=1290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A few days ago I discussed a decision by Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner holding that purchase of a trademarked keyword to trigger a sponsored link on a search engine constitutes a “use in commerce” of the trademark under the Lanham Act (the Federal Trademark statute). (Earlier post here). In that post I [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>A few days ago I discussed a decision by Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner holding that purchase of a trademarked keyword to trigger a sponsored link on a search engine constitutes a “use in commerce” of the trademark under the Lanham Act (the Federal Trademark statute). (<a href="http://www.masslawblog.com/2009/04/hearts-on-fire-v-blue-nile-judge-gertner-rules-that-suit-alleging-use-of-keyword-to-trigger-search-engine-ads-can-withstand-a-motion-to-dismiss/" target="_blank">Earlier post here</a>). In that post I mentioned that among cases addressing this issues, only the Second Circuit had held otherwise.</p>
<p>Now the Second Circuit seems to have changed its position on this issue. In <a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/doc/06-4881-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/hilite/" target="_blank" class="broken_link">Rescuecom v. Google</a>, issued on Aprl 3, 2009, the court reversed a motion to dismiss by the trial court, holding that Rescuecom properly alleged that Google&#8217;s keyword ad practices constituted a &#8220;use in commerce&#8221; under the Lanham Act.</p>
<p>In a somewhat unusual step, the court attached to its opinion an Appendix entitled &#8220;On the Meaning of &#8220;Use in Commerce&#8221; in Sections 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act.&#8221; The Appendix, which is described as dicta, discusses at some length the statutory history of the &#8220;use in commerce&#8221; phrase in the Lanham Act.</p>
<p>This decision appears to be a game-changer for Google, and will require it to modify its policies on selling key word search ads to competitors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://masslawblog.com/trademark/second-circuit-google-keyword-ad-practices-are-use-in-commerce/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hearts on Fire v. Blue Nile: Judge Gertner Rules That Keyword to Trigger Search Engine Ads Is a &quot;Use&quot; Under Lanham Act</title>
		<link>http://masslawblog.com/trademark/hearts-on-fire-v-blue-nile-judge-gertner-rules-that-suit-alleging-use-of-keyword-to-trigger-search-engine-ads-can-withstand-a-motion-to-dismiss/</link>
		<comments>http://masslawblog.com/trademark/hearts-on-fire-v-blue-nile-judge-gertner-rules-that-suit-alleging-use-of-keyword-to-trigger-search-engine-ads-can-withstand-a-motion-to-dismiss/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lee Gesmer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blue Nile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hearts on Fire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Gertner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lanham Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.masslawblog.com/?p=1256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The issue here, presented in the context of a motion to dismiss, is whether adoption of a trademark as a search engine keyword constitutes a &#8220;use&#8221; under the Lanham Act.  The Lanham Act requires &#8220;use in commerce&#8221; as a condition of infringement, and as Judge Gertner points out, various courts have taken different positions on [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>The issue here, presented in the context of a motion to dismiss, is whether adoption of a trademark as a search engine keyword constitutes a &#8220;use&#8221; under the Lanham Act.  The Lanham Act requires &#8220;use in commerce&#8221; as a condition of infringement, and as Judge Gertner points out, various courts have taken different positions on whether purchase of a trademarked keyword to trigger a sponsored link on a search engine is a &#8220;use&#8221; of the trademark.  Judge Gertner surveyed the field and noted that most of the courts that have considered this issue have found that utilizing a trademark in this manner does constitute &#8220;use&#8221; under the Act, and she sided with what she considers to be the majority view (the significant exception being the Second Circuit&#8217;s decision in <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/1800contacts_v_whenu/decision.pdf" target="_blank">1-800 Contacts v. WhenU</a>).</p>
<p>For earlier postings on this issue click <a href="http://www.masslawblog.com/2006/12/courts-struggle-with-search-engines-use-of-trademarked-keywords/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.masslawblog.com/2005/07/second-circuit-holds-that-use-of-competitors-name-to-trigger-pop-up-ads-does-not-violate-trademark-law/" target="_blank">here</a>. Judge Gertner&#8217;s decision in the Hearts on Fire case is on the court&#8217;s website, <a href="http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=gertner/pdf/heartsonfiremtd.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://masslawblog.com/trademark/hearts-on-fire-v-blue-nile-judge-gertner-rules-that-suit-alleging-use-of-keyword-to-trigger-search-engine-ads-can-withstand-a-motion-to-dismiss/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
