Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)-Reflex v. Luxy
Internet Law

Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)-Reflex v. Luxy

Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)-Reflex v. Luxy

Check your calendar. Yes, it’s 2021. But trademark plaintiffs and judges are still partying like it’s 1999. The plaintiff is Seeking Arrangements, one of my favorite websites to base my Internet Law exams on. The defendant is a competitor, Luxy. The court summarizes the alleged trademark problems:

Defendant used the phrase “Online Arrangement” and Plaintiffs’ trademark “Seeking Millionaire” as metatags on its website to direct consumers who searched for “Seeking,” “Seeking Millionaire,” and “Seeking Arrangement” to its own website and mobile application. Defendant has also used Plaintiffs’ trademarks “Seeking Millionaire,” “Seeking Arrangement,” “Whats Your Price,” “Carrot Dating,” and “Seeking” as search terms in the Apple Appstore and Google Play Store to yield LuxyApp as a search result.

(There’s also a copyright claim for Luxy copying the plaintiff’s TOS/privacy policy. REALLY? FFS. This is a topic I used as a sample exam idea in the 1990s).

The court starts its trademark analysis nostalgically: “Turn back the clock to the Internet’s nascent age—1999.” (How about this: let’s not). The court recounts the perennially problematic Brookfield case and how the 2004 Playboy v. Netscape and 2011 Network Automation cases modified it. All of that background leads to nothing, because the court ignores all of that discussion and turns instead to the standard multi-factor Sleekcraft likelihood of confusion test:

  • Mark strength: The trademarks Seeking Arrangement, Seeking Millionaire, and Whats Your Price are descriptive (“they describe Plaintiffs’ app’s purpose—to arrange meetings and relationships with high-value partners”), and plaintiffs claim they invested a lot of money in the marks. So this factor favors the plaintiff (how???).
  • Competitive proximity. The parties are competitors.
  • Mark similarity. “Luxy” is different from the marks at issue. (HUH??? The issue is using the plaintiff’s marks in the keyword metatags and as triggers for keyword ads).
  • Actual confusion. Plaintiff hasn’t presented any evidence of it, but the court says that’s OK because I guess the court doesn’t expect to see these allegations in the complaint?
  • Marketing channels. The litigants use the Internet, but who doesn’t, so normally the court would say this factor is irrelevant. But the court keeps talking: “because of the Internet’s—and Apple’s Appstore, in particular—ubiquity with everyday life, users are more likely to believe that all companies are available in the Appstore. Thus, if users were looking for Plaintiffs’ app by typing Plaintiffs’ trademarked phrases into the search bar, and only Defendant’s app appeared, it would be reasonable for that user to, at the very least, associate Defendant’s app with Plaintiffs. Or, at the most, confuse Defendant’s app with Plaintiffs’. This situation is different from the websites in Network Automation and Playboy, which were clearly distinguished with ad designations. The search results here do not have those same disclaimers. The situation is even more precarious in the Google Playstore. There, both Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s apps are available and neither have the ad label when searching Plaintiffs’ phrases” WHAT??? All of the judge’s factual assumptions beg for citations. Plus, does this mean that rival apps can’t advertise themselves as rivals or engage in comparative advertising because the app stores aren’t properly labeling the ads, even if the advertisers are engaging in nominative use? HEY APP STORES–FIX THIS.
  • Purchaser care. “These types of apps attract two groups of people. The first group is, theoretically, more sophisticated and less likely to be confused since they are successful individuals looking for relationships. But second group [sic], in theory, is less sophisticated and just looking to find a way to ‘hook up’ with members of the first group. This latter group is less likely to exercise care in which app they select to find potential mates.” Every sex worker just took massive umbrage at the judge’s condescending stereotypes about the role of online marketing in their financial and safety decisions. It’s really offensive.
  • Defendant’s intent. The factor slightly favored the plaintiff because “Defendant intended to use Plaintiffs’ mark in its metatags so its app would appear in search results. And, at least with Apple’s Appstore, one cannot compare Plaintiffs’ app with Defendant’s as Plaintiff’s app is not on the Appstore.” 😠

The court concludes “Plaintiffs have alleged enough likelihood of confusion to make it past the pleading stage.” This may not sound objectionable because the court could still dismiss the case at a later procedural stage. However, it’s actually a significant loss for the defense for this case to proceed because it opens up expensive discovery. Indeed, the parties are embroiled in discovery disputes right now. That’s what happens when judges aren’t aggressive enough about dismissing bogus cases at the early procedural stages.

Regarding the counterfeiting claim, the court refuses to accept that keyword metatags categorically can’t create counterfeiting. Instead, the court decides to let this one proceed to summary judgment too. So yes, here we are in 2021, fighting over whether keyword metatags could be both trademark infringement and counterfeiting. As Grumpy Cat would say:

Case citation: Reflex Media, Inc. v. Luxy Limited, 2021 WL 4134839 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2021)

More Posts About Keyword Advertising

* Fifth Circuit Says Keyword Ads Could Contribute to Initial Interest Confusion (UGH)–Adler v. McNeil
Google’s Search Disambiguation Doesn’t Create Initial Interest Confusion–Aliign v. lululemon
Ohio Bans Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers
Want to Engage in Anti-Competitive Trademark Bullying? Second Circuit Says: Great, Have a Nice Day!–1-800 Contacts v. FTC
Selling Keyword Ads Isn’t Theft or Conversion–Edible IP v. Google
Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless…. –Adler v. Reyes & Adler v. McNeil
Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All
Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in False Advertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. Newport Fishing
IP/Internet/Antitrust Professor Amicus Brief in 1-800 Contacts v. FTC
New Jersey Attorney Ethics Opinion Blesses Competitive Keyword Advertising (…or Does It?)
Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Dr. Greenberg v. Perfect Body Image
The Florida Bar Regulates, But Doesn’t Ban, Competitive Keyword Ads
Rounding Up Three Recent Keyword Advertising Cases–Comphy v. Amazon & More
Do Adjacent Organic Search Results Constitute Trademark Infringement? Of Course Not…But…–America CAN! v. CDF
The Ongoing Saga of the Florida Bar’s Angst About Competitive Keyword Advertising
Your Periodic Reminder That Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Passport Health v. Avance
Restricting Competitive Keyword Ads Is Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
Another Failed Trademark Suit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising–JIVE v. Wine Racks America
Negative Keywords Help Defeat Preliminary Injunction–DealDash v. ContextLogic
The Florida Bar and Competitive Keyword Advertising: A Tragicomedy (in 3 Parts)
Another Court Says Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesn’t Cause Confusion
Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesn’t Show Bad Intent–ONEpul v. BagSpot
Brief Roundup of Three Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Developments
Interesting Tidbits From FTC’s Antitrust Win Against 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Restrictions
1-800 Contacts Charges Higher Prices Than Its Online Competitors, But They Are OK With That–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
Amazon Defeats Lawsuit Over Its Keyword Ad Purchases–Lasoff v. Amazon
More Evidence Why Keyword Advertising Litigation Is Waning
Court Dumps Crappy Trademark & Keyword Ad Case–ONEPul v. BagSpot
AdWords Buys Using Geographic Terms Support Personal Jurisdiction–Rilley v. MoneyMutual
FTC Sues 1-800 Contacts For Restricting Competitive Keyword Advertising
Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Will Go To A Jury–Edible Arrangements v. Provide Commerce
Texas Ethics Opinion Approves Competitive Keyword Ads By Lawyers
Court Beats Down Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit–Beast Sports v. BPI
Another Murky Opinion on Lawyers Buying Keyword Ads on Other Lawyers’ Names–In re Naert
Keyword Ad Lawsuit Isn’t Covered By California’s Anti-SLAPP Law
Confusion From Competitive Keyword Advertising? Fuhgeddaboudit
Competitive Keyword Advertising Permitted As Nominative Use–ElitePay Global v. CardPaymentOptions
Google And Yahoo Defeat Last Remaining Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising
Mixed Ruling in Competitive Keyword Advertising Case–Goldline v. Regal
Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Infogroup v. DatabaseLLC
Damages from Competitive Keyword Advertising Are “Vanishingly Small”
More Defendants Win Keyword Advertising Lawsuits
Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails Badly
Duplicitous Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuits–Fareportal v. LBF (& Vice-Versa)
Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v. OxBlue
Want To Know Amazon’s Confidential Settlement Terms For A Keyword Advertising Lawsuit? Merry Christmas!
Florida Allows Competitive Keyword Advertising By Lawyers
Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Unceremoniously Dismissed–Infostream v. Avid
Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Allied Interstate v. Kimmel & Silverman
More Evidence That Competitive Keyword Advertising Benefits Trademark Owners
Suing Over Keyword Advertising Is A Bad Business Decision For Trademark Owners
Florida Proposes to Ban Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers
More Confirmation That Google Has Won the AdWords Trademark Battles Worldwide
Google’s Search Suggestions Don’t Violate Wisconsin Publicity Rights Law
Amazon’s Merchandising of Its Search Results Doesn’t Violate Trademark Law
Buying Keyword Ads on People’s Names Doesn’t Violate Their Publicity Rights
With Its Australian Court Victory, Google Moves Closer to Legitimizing Keyword Advertising Globally
Yet Another Ruling That Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Louisiana Pacific v. James Hardie
Another Google AdWords Advertiser Defeats Trademark Infringement Lawsuit
With Rosetta Stone Settlement, Google Gets Closer to Legitimizing Billions of AdWords Revenue
Google Defeats Trademark Challenge to Its AdWords Service
Newly Released Consumer Survey Indicates that Legal Concerns About Competitive Keyword Advertising Are Overblown

 

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *