Remove 2011 Remove Advertising Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

Second Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Advertising–1-800 Contacts v. Warby Parker

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Fifteen years ago, courts generally avoided categorical pronouncements about the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising. Whatever legal ambiguity might have existed then has been decisively resolved, at least with respect to competitive keyword ads that don’t use the trademark in the ad copy. Google (4th Circuit).

article thumbnail

Google’s Search Disambiguation Doesn’t Create Initial Interest Confusion–Aliign v. lululemon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Aliign “is an event, lifestyle, and apparel company” allegedly with a first trademark use in 2011. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Ohio Bans Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers. Want to Engage in Anti-Competitive Trademark Bullying? lululemon is the well-known yoga gear company.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Winzo v Google- Missed Opportunity to Detail out Disparagement

SpicyIP

This results in common claims of ‘disparagement’ in trademark law. Previously, trademark cases have been entertained in situations where disclaimers/ warnings have been given along with products. Furthermore, it was held that there was no infringement of trademark under section 29 of the Trademarks Act (‘the Act’).

article thumbnail

Court Denies Injunction in Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit–Nursing CE Central v. Colibri

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a competitive keyword advertising lawsuit. The plaintiff has a trademark registration for the “Nursing CE Central” mark for providing continuing education for nurses. This is fine, but it deviates from courts’ efforts over the years to come up with multi-factor variations specific to keyword advertising.

article thumbnail

[PART II] Personality Rights in Spotlight Once More!: Analysing The DHC’s Karan Johar v.  India Pride Advisory Order 

SpicyIP

The court ruled that the trademark could not be used without a license, and for the image, there was a wrongful association prohibited under the trademark law. 2011), which imported the well-known trademark principle to protect well-known names as well. Network Solutions Private Limited & Ors.

article thumbnail

Top Trademark Trends of 2022

Erik K Pelton

On November 7 th , Conde Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage for $4 million for false advertising and infringing Vogue’s trademarks. Erik Pelton® has been making trademarks bloom since 1999 ® as the founder of Erik M. Pelton & Associates ®, a boutique trademark law firm in Falls Church, Virginia. 2011: [link].

Trademark 130
article thumbnail

In case you didn’t already know, don’t do anything in bad faith!

IPilogue

The applicant, Beijing Judian Restaurant Co (“Judian”), has operated restaurants in Vancouver and Richmond since 2018, along with numerous well-known ( served over 5,750,000 customers between 2011 and 2019 ) restaurants in China since 2005. The applicant noted similar provisions in EU and UK trademark law that have been adjudicated.

Trademark 114