Trademark Infringement Online

🔹 What Is Online Trademark Infringement?

Trademark infringement online can take various forms, including:

Cybersquatting: Registering domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to well-known trademarks.

Keyword Advertising: Using a competitor's trademark as a keyword in search engine advertising.

Metatagging: Embedding trademarks in website code to manipulate search engine results.

Social Media Misuse: Using a trademarked name as a handle, profile name, or in content to mislead users.

Counterfeit Sales: Selling fake or unauthorized products using the original brand’s name, logo, or likeness.

To prove trademark infringement, the trademark owner must typically show:

Ownership of a valid trademark.

Unauthorized use of a confusingly similar mark.

A likelihood of consumer confusion.

🔍 Detailed Case Law Examples

1. Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.

(9th Cir. 1999)

📌 Facts:

Brookfield owned the trademark "MovieBuff" for a movie database. West Coast registered moviebuff.com as a domain name and used "MovieBuff" in its website's HTML metatags, even though it didn’t display the term visibly.

⚖️ Issue:

Did using the trademark in metatags and as a domain constitute infringement?

🧾 Holding:

Yes. The court held that using a trademark in metatags to manipulate search results created "initial interest confusion" — drawing in users who believed they were going to the trademark owner's site.

🔍 Significance:

This case established that even non-visible use of a trademark online (like in HTML code) can still be infringing if it causes user confusion.

2. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp.

(9th Cir. 2004)

📌 Facts:

Netscape allowed advertisers to bid on keywords like "Playboy" and "Playmate" (both registered trademarks) so their ads would appear when users searched those terms.

⚖️ Issue:

Is selling trademarks as keywords for pop-up ads a form of trademark infringement?

🧾 Holding:

Yes. The court held that this practice could lead to consumer confusion, especially since the ads appeared without clear labeling, misleading users into thinking the ads were affiliated with Playboy.

🔍 Significance:

Set a precedent for keyword advertising and clarified that using trademarks in sponsored search results may be infringing if it misleads users.

3. Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.

(2nd Cir. 2009)

📌 Facts:

Google allowed advertisers to bid on Rescuecom’s trademark as a search keyword, but did not display the mark itself in the ads. Rescuecom sued for infringement.

⚖️ Issue:

Is Google liable for allowing competitors to buy the "Rescuecom" trademark as an ad keyword?

🧾 Holding:

Yes. The court reversed a dismissal and held that selling trademarked keywords for advertising constitutes a “use in commerce”, satisfying a key element of trademark infringement.

🔍 Significance:

This case opened the door to litigation against search engines for selling trademarked terms as ad keywords.

4. Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc.

(2nd Cir. 2010)

📌 Facts:

Tiffany alleged that eBay allowed counterfeit Tiffany jewelry to be sold on its platform, despite being notified multiple times.

⚖️ Issue:

Was eBay liable for trademark infringement for hosting third-party counterfeit sellers?

🧾 Holding:

No. The court held eBay was not liable because it did not directly sell the counterfeit goods and took reasonable steps to prevent counterfeits.

🔍 Significance:

Introduced the idea of “safe harbor” for online platforms (similar to DMCA for copyright), if they act responsibly when notified of infringing content.

5. Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

(9th Cir. 2015)

📌 Facts:

Multi Time Machine (MTM) made military-style watches but did not sell through Amazon. However, when users searched for “MTM watches” on Amazon, the site showed competing watch brands without clearly stating that MTM products weren’t available.

⚖️ Issue:

Did Amazon’s search results cause confusion?

🧾 Holding:

No. The court ruled that a reasonable consumer would not be confused because the results clearly labeled the products and brands. There was no deception.

🔍 Significance:

Helped define limits on internal search engine liability and clarified that not every instance of brand use leads to confusion.

6. Petronas v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.

(9th Cir. 2013)

📌 Facts:

Petronas, a Malaysian oil company, sued GoDaddy for allowing a user to register a domain name petronastower.net, which was used to host deceptive content.

⚖️ Issue:

Can domain registrars be liable for cybersquatting?

🧾 Holding:

No. The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) does not impose liability on domain registrars that act as intermediaries unless they act in bad faith.

🔍 Significance:

Clarified the limited liability of domain registrars, even in cases involving bad-faith domain name registrations.

7. Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc.

(N.D. Cal. 2009)

📌 Facts:

Louis Vuitton sued a web hosting company that hosted multiple websites selling counterfeit LV products.

⚖️ Issue:

Can a web host be held liable for hosting counterfeit-selling websites?

🧾 Holding:

Yes. The court held the host liable because it had knowledge of infringement and failed to act, awarding Louis Vuitton $10.5 million in damages.

🔍 Significance:

This case emphasized that service providers could be liable if they knowingly facilitate infringement.

8. Google France SARL v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA

(European Court of Justice, 2010)

📌 Facts:

Louis Vuitton sued Google for allowing advertisers to buy its trademark as a keyword in Europe.

⚖️ Issue:

Is Google liable under European law for keyword-based trademark infringement?

🧾 Holding:

No. The court ruled that Google’s role was limited to hosting and delivering ads, not selecting or promoting specific content. However, advertisers themselves could be liable.

🔍 Significance:

Shaped EU digital trademark law, balancing responsibility between platforms and advertisers.

✅ Summary of Key Legal Principles

PrincipleExplanationSupported Cases
Initial Interest ConfusionEven if confusion is resolved before purchase, misleading users initially is infringingBrookfield v. West Coast
Keyword InfringementUsing a trademark as a keyword ad trigger can be infringingRescuecom v. Google, Playboy v. Netscape
Platform LiabilityPlatforms aren’t liable unless they knowingly enable infringementTiffany v. eBay, Petronas v. GoDaddy
Safe Harbor for HostsWeb hosts may be liable if they knowingly host infringing contentLouis Vuitton v. Akanoc
Domain Name IssuesBad faith registration of domains (cybersquatting) is actionablePetronas v. GoDaddy

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments