WhenU.com, Inc. & Google Inc.: Parsing Trademark's Use Requirement
![handle is hein.journals/berktech21 and id is 415 raw text is: WHENU. com, INC. & GOOGLE INC.:
PARSING TRADEMARK'S USE REQUIREMENT
By Aliia Gdmez
Increasingly, internet businesses rely on online advertising as their
primary revenue source. Recent litigation reveals inconsistent application
of trademark law's use requirement by courts in the keyword advertising
context.' While one court recently rejected defendant Google's arguments
that marks used only in computer code-invisible to the end user-could
not constitute use under the Lanham Act,2 other courts addressed similar
facts in the When U line of cases, but found no trademark use as a matter of
law.3 This drastic variation in courts' treatment of analogous facts results
in disparate treatment of similarly situated defendants: WhenU can operate
secure in the knowledge that its business model has been vindicated, while
Google faces costly, fact-intensive litigation and the constant threat of ad-
ditional lawsuits. Beyond the impact on these particular litigants, the legal
uncertainty created by these inconsistent decisions stifles investment and
innovation.
Trademark law grants owners limited rights; not every use of a pro-
tected mark is actionable. But traditional infringement analysis focuses on
the multi-factor likelihood of confusion test, often paying scant attention
to the logically prior question of whether the allegedly infringing activity
constitutes a protected trademark use.
Where the dispute involves a counterfeited physical object-a good
identified by a mark misappropriated by a competitor who passes off her
© 2006 Alicia Gdmez
1. Keyword advertising is a business practice involving the sale of advertising trig-
gered by specified terms, or keywords. When a computer user enters specified search
terms, the software or search engine returns advertisements. Most commonly, these ad-
vertisements appear as pop-up advertisements or sponsored links. See Google Inc. v. Am.
Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 74 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (N.D. Cal. 2005); U-Haul Int'l,
Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 723, 725-26 (E.D. Va. 2003).
2. Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Google Inc., No. 1:04cv507, 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 18642, at *1, *11 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2005) [hereinafter GEICO II]; Gov't Em-
ployees Ins. Co. v. Google Inc., 330 F. Supp. 2d 700, 704 (E.D. Va. 2004) [hereinafter
GEICO I].
3. Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 293 F. Supp. 2d 734 (E.D. Mich.
2003); U-Haul, 279 F. Supp. 2d at 723; 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414
F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005) [hereinafter 1-800 Contacts I], rev'g 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v.
WhenU.com, Inc., 309 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) [hereinafter 1-800 Contacts I];
15 U.S.C. § 1127 (2000).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/berktech21&div=27&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
WhenU.com, Inc. & Google Inc.: Parsing Trademark's Use Requirement
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most