Revision as of 17:38, 19 October 2010

1-800 CONTACTS v. WhenU.com was a legal dispute beginning in 2002 over pop-up advertisments.^[1] It was brought by 1-800 Contacts, an online distributor of various brands of contact lenses against WhenU SaveNow, a maker of of advertising software. The suit also named Vision Direct, one of WhenU advertising customers as a co-defendant. 1-800 CONTACTS alleged that the advertisements provided by WhenU, which advertised competitors of 1-800 CONTACTS(such as Vision Direct) when people viewed the company's web site, as "inherently deceptive" and one that "misleads users into falsely believing the pop-up advertisements supplied by WhenU.com are in actuality advertisements authorized by and originating with the underlying Web site".

Facts of the Case

Preliminary Injunction

In December 2003 Judge Deborah Batts of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction, barring WhenU from delivering the advertisements to some web surfers, on the grounds that it constituted trademark infringement violating the Lanham Act.^[2]

Second Circuit Appeal

Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that WhenU's actions did not amount to the "use" that the Lanham Act requires in order to constitute trademark infringement. The appeal court reversed the preliminary injunction and ordered the dismissal of all claims made by 1-800 CONTACTS that were based upon trademark infringement, leaving the claims based upon unfair competition and copyright infringement.^[3] The District court had already found that 1-800 CONTACTS was unlikely to prevail in its copyright infringement claims, finding that "the conduct neither violated [the] plaintiff's right to display its copyrighted website, nor its right to create derivative works therefrom".^[4]

Outside Involvement

The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized the case, stating that it was "not to help [people] fight off adware and spyware" but was rather intended to allow companies "to gain control over [a computer's] desktop". They argued this lawsuit if successful "would create a precedent that would enable trademark owners to dictate what could be open on your desktop when you visit their websites". At the time of the appeal it filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Appeals Court to limit the reach of the "initial interest confusion" doctrine that had been applied by the District Court.^[5]

Sources

^ 1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com and Vision Direct, Inc. 309 F.Supp.2d 467 (S.D.N.Y., 2003-12-22), reversed in part and remanded, F.3d—2d. Cir., 2005-06-27
^ Stefanie Olsen (2004-01-05). "Pop-up seller loses round in court". CNET News.com.
^ Chloe Hecht (2005-09-25). "Court Sees Clearly Now: "Use" in 1 800-CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc. and Vision Direct, Inc". Chilling Effects.
^ Martin H. Samson. "1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com and Vision Direct, Inc". Phillips Nizer LLP Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions.
^ "1-800 CONTACTS v. WhenU". Electronic Frontier Foundation.

[1] 1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com and Vision Direct, Inc. 309 F.Supp.2d 467 (S.D.N.Y., 2003-12-22), reversed in part and remanded, F.3d—2d. Cir., 2005-06-27

[2] Stefanie Olsen (2004-01-05). "Pop-up seller loses round in court". CNET News.com.

[3] Chloe Hecht (2005-09-25). "Court Sees Clearly Now: "Use" in 1 800-CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc. and Vision Direct, Inc". Chilling Effects.

[4] Martin H. Samson. "1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com and Vision Direct, Inc". Phillips Nizer LLP Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions.

[5] "1-800 CONTACTS v. WhenU". Electronic Frontier Foundation.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Revision as of 01:50, 19 October 2010 edit Marmbrus (talk \| contribs) 34 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:38, 19 October 2010 edit undo Marmbrus (talk \| contribs) 34 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''''1-800 CONTACTS v. WhenU.com''''' was a legal dispute beginning in 2002 over [[pop-up ad]]vertisments.<ref>''1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com and Vision Direct, Inc.'' 309 F.Supp.2d 467 (S.D.N.Y., 2003-12-22), reversed in part and remanded, F.3d—2d. Cir., 2005-06-27</ref> It was brought by [[1-~~800_Contacts~~]], an online distributor of various brands of [[contact lenses]] against [[~~WhenU_SaveNow~~]], a maker of of advertising software. The suit also named Vision Direct, one of WhenU advertising customers as a co-defendant. 1-800 CONTACTS alleged that the advertisements provided by WhenU, which advertised competitors of 1-800 CONTACTS(such as Vision Direct) when people viewed the company's web site, as "inherently deceptive" and one that "misleads users into falsely believing the pop-up advertisements supplied by WhenU.com are in actuality advertisements authorized by and originating with the underlying Web site".		'''''1-800 CONTACTS v. WhenU.com''''' was a legal dispute beginning in 2002 over [[pop-up ad]]vertisments.<ref>''1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com and Vision Direct, Inc.'' 309 F.Supp.2d 467 (S.D.N.Y., 2003-12-22), reversed in part and remanded, F.3d—2d. Cir., 2005-06-27</ref> It was brought by [[1-800 Contacts]], an online distributor of various brands of [[contact lenses]] against [[WhenU SaveNow]], a maker of of advertising software. The suit also named Vision Direct, one of WhenU advertising customers as a co-defendant. 1-800 CONTACTS alleged that the advertisements provided by WhenU, which advertised competitors of 1-800 CONTACTS(such as Vision Direct) when people viewed the company's web site, as "inherently deceptive" and one that "misleads users into falsely believing the pop-up advertisements supplied by WhenU.com are in actuality advertisements authorized by and originating with the underlying Web site".

	=Facts of the Case=		=Facts of the Case=