User:Gyp2/sandbox: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
==Court's Finding== |
==Court's Finding== |
||
We must be acutely aware of excessive rigidity when applying the law in the Internet context; emerging technologies require a flexible approach. <ref name=brookfield_v_w_coast></ref> |
|||
==Notes...== |
==Notes...== |
||
Revision as of 17:12, 12 October 2011
| Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Full case name | Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc. |
| Decided | March 8, 2011 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Stephen S. Trott, Kim McLane Wardlaw, & Michael W. Mosman. |
Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc. is a California court case where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's preliminary injunction against Network Automation on the issue of trademark infringement of the Advanced Systems Concepts' "ActiveBatch" trademark. The court evaluated the factors relevant to likelihood of customer confusion outlined in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats [1], and concluded that was customer confusion was not likely, vacated the injunction, and reversed the decision. [2]
Background
Network Automation ("Network") and Advanced Systems Concepts ("Systems") both sell job scheduling and management software. Network's product is called Automate and Systems's product is called ActiveBatch, and both companies run keyword advertisements on the internet. Network decided to buy the keyword "ActiveBatch" so that when users searched for "ActiveBatch", Network's website would be displayed as a sponsored link on search engines including Google Search and Microsoft Bing.
AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, In determining whether confusion between related goods is likely, the following factors are relevant:
- strength of the mark
- proximity of the goods
- similarity of the marks
- evidence of actual confusion
- marketing channels used
- type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
- defendant's intent in selecting the mark
- likelihood of expansion of the product lines [1]
Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.
- the similarity of the marks
- the relatedness of the goods and services offered
- the simultaneous use of the Internet as a marketing channel
Analysis
Court's Finding
We must be acutely aware of excessive rigidity when applying the law in the Internet context; emerging technologies require a flexible approach. [3]
Notes...
This is the court case primary source. [2]
This is from a harvard law blog. [4]
Eric Goldman blog. [5]
Article in Law360. [6]
Ninth Circuit Clarifies Standards For Keyword Advertising Trademark Cases. [7]
gibson dunn. [8]
lewis and roca. [9]
national law review. [10]
bullivant. [11]
techdirt. [12]
public citizen. [13]
internet troika, Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. [3] (1) the similarity of the marks, (2) the relatedness of the goods or services, and (3) the simultaneous use of the Web as a marketing channel, for any case addressing trademark infringement on the Internet
AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats original trademark case
legal cite [14]
lanham act [15]
custom link names this is my google text
primary sources: no original research, no personal opinion
search for templates, search for: "template:XXXXXXX"
you dont have to put too many refs in the first summary paragraph
use background on how case arose, quote judge opinion, ...
References
- ^ a b "Opinion for: AMF INCORPORATED V. SLEEKCRAFT BOATS".
- ^ a b "Opinion for: NETWORK AUTOMATION, INC. V. ADVANCED SYSTEMS CONCEPTS, INC".
- ^ a b "Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp".
- ^ "Ninth Circuit Vacates Injunction in Keyword Advertising Case".
- ^ "Important Ninth Circuit Ruling on Keyword Advertising, Plus Recaps of the Past 4 Months of Keyword Ad Decisions".
- ^ "A Key Victory for Keyword Advertising Programs: The Ninth Circuit's Decision in Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc".
- ^ "Ninth Circuit Clarifies Standards For Keyword Advertising Trademark Cases" (PDF).
- ^ "Ninth Circuit Addresses Use in Commerce, Likelihood of Confusion Issues in Search Engine Advertising Trademark Claims".
- ^ "New Guidance in an Internet Keyword Ad Case".
- ^ "Ninth Circuit Establishes Factors to Determine Keyword Advertising Infringement".
- ^ "Will Ninth Circuit Decision Open Floodgates on Bidding for Trademarked Keywords?".
- ^ "Finally: Clear Ruling That Realizes That Just Buying Ads On Trademarked Keywords Is Not Infringing".
- ^ "Ninth Circuit Decision Protects Keyword Advertising Against Trademark Claim".
- ^ a vs b, 2 yes (9th circuit 1/2/2011) (""yes to a"").
- ^ 15 U.S.C. § 1114