Yet Another Text Ad Trademark Lawsuit Decided Correctly

from the hopefully-a-trend dept

Wed, Jan 10th 2007 1:13pm — Mike Masnick

On Monday, we discussed a ruling that said that using trademarked search keywords to show ads from competitors was not a trademark violation, and Eric Goldman has another such case today. This time, the focus was on whether or not such an ad diluted the original trademark, and the ruling found that it did not. In this case, BowFlex sued competitor CrossBow, after CrossBow bought some ads on the term "BowFlex Information" and put up an ad saying "Compare CrossBow to Bowflex." Clicking on the ad took people to a chart comparing the two products. It's difficult to see how that could be considered dilution (or confusing, for that matter), and the judge agreed. We're seeing a lot more of these types of cases these days, and the rulings seem a bit more consistently correct in recognizing that there's no trademark violation here. Hopefully, the trend continues to the point that these lawsuits stop getting filed.

8 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Bumbling old fool, 10 Jan 2007 @ 2:00pm

Thats not fair.
You've left me nothing to complain about here... How could you do this to me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2007 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re: Thats not fair.
  yet you still found something to complain about...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Riggs-, 10 Jan 2007 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re: Thats not fair.
  stop complaining about having nothing to complain about....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2007 @ 2:34pm

"Hopefully, the trend continues to the point that these lawsuits stop getting filed."

Doubtful; owners of a trademark are required to fight for it, otherwise they lose it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sceptic, 10 Jan 2007 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re:
  "Hopefully, the trend continues to the point that these lawsuits stop getting filed."
  
  Doubtful; owners of a trademark are required to fight for it, otherwise they lose it.
  
  Obviously that's what they feel, but at the same time that's not true. Suing anyone that used your trademark in some sort of way is not defending it, it's just suing. Defending it comes when the actual use was diluting the trademark or confusing the customer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stu, 10 Jan 2007 @ 3:07pm

All this complaining is making me want to complain - about something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
misanthropic humanist, 10 Jan 2007 @ 4:43pm

good news is no news
We seem to have an optimism defecit. This is what Digg would look like if things actually started to look up on this planet.

Infinite free energy discovered
So the war in Iraq was all for nothing? Science threatens the American way of life.
10 comments

Proof God exists
House prices set to fall after diety reveals afterlife. Life insurance companies to sue.
5 comments

Cure for cancer found
Cheap drugs for freeloading sickos. More old people to take care of worries government.
5 comments

Pet hamster addicted to XBox porn
OMFGzorZ ROFLMAO Check out this YouTube vid!!!!!!
10,986,385 comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mkam, 11 Jan 2007 @ 3:46am
  
  Re: good news is no news
  thanks for the laugh.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]