Amazon escapes liability for ads & emails touting vendors’ infringing products

Lasoff v. Inc, 2017 WL 372948, No. C16-151 (W.D.
Wash. Jan. 26, 2017)
Lasoff owns Ingrass, which sells artificial turf and related
products.  He sold through Amazon, but in
2013 his sales allegedly began to plummet, both on his own website and on
Amazon.  He alleged that third-party
sellers were offering cheaper, counterfeit “Ingrass” products for sale on When potential online consumers would click on links advertising “Ingrass”
products in Defendant’s promotional emails or in “sponsored link”
advertisements on third-party search engines, they were allegedly directed “to
competing listings which falsely advertised products as ‘Ingrass’ products at a
substantially discounted price.”
Amazon’s emails and its “sponsored link” ads on third-party
search engines are created automatically based on information retained from
that customer’s browsing sessions on Amazon; the content of the ads come from
vendors, who represent to Amazon that they have the right to license Amazon to
display that content. Likewise, Amazon automatically generates “keywords”
(words or phrases related to products or product names) based on consumer
searches on its websites, then an algorithm determines what keywords it
Lasoff alleged that Amazon misappropriated the Ingrass trademark
and domain name by buying the keywords ‘Ingrass’ and/or ‘’ on search
The CDA applied to his state-law claims, including state-law
trademark infringement.  Lasoff argued
that the emails and online ads weren’t provided by another information content
provider, because that was done by Amazon’s creation of the algorithm that
sends the emails/purchases of the keywords. 
The court disagreed; based on existing precedent, to allow this claim “would
place liability on [Defendant] for simply compiling false and/or misleading
content created by the individual defendants and other coconspirators.”  Amazon didn’t develop the underlying
information that Lasoff alleged harmed him.
The court found that “Ingrass” was suggestive (Lasoff
testified that it was short for “It’s Not Grass”) because it required
imagination to go from the product name to the product.   “While the Court cannot imagine an average
consumer instantly understanding what Plaintiff’s product is based on the name,
it is not difficult to imagine that same consumer saying something like ‘Oh, I
get it’ upon seeing the product to which the mark is attached.”  [Sigh. 
I am increasingly convinced that we need to dump suggestiveness,
especially if it’s going to be interpreted this way—consider that “Gold Medal”
and “Best” are suggestive based on this test.]
Amazon argued that it couldn’t be held directly liable for
trademark infringement. The court found the swap meet cases inapposite because,
among other things, “there is no evidence that the swap meet operators
generated promotional messages advertising the counterfeit goods.” Network Automation found use in
commerce, and the court found Amazon’s purported distinction between “the ‘deliberate’
selection of Advanced’s trademark by Network and the Amazon algorithm which
automatically selects keywords” to be meaningless for purposes of deciding
whether Amazon was “using” the mark. 
Although Network Automation
and Rescuecom, cited with approval by
the Ninth Circuit, precluded summary judgment on the use in commerce issue, the
court found “critical factual differences” here.  Unlike Network Automation, Amazon wasn’t a
competitor of the plaintiff; unlike Google, Amazon was buying, not selling, the
use of Lasoff’s mark.  Calling this a
direct infringement situation was trying to fit a square peg into a round
hole—when we have a square hole that will do just fine.
Even assuming that Amazon’s keyword buy was a use in
commerce, Tiffany v. eBay showed that
Amazon was entitled to summary judgment on direct liability.  Tiffany
held that “a defendant may lawfully use a plaintiff’s trademark where doing so
is necessary to describe the plaintiff’s product and does not imply a false
affiliation or endorsement by the plaintiff of the defendant.” eBay, and
likewise Amazon, need not be the guarantor of the genuineness of all of the
products offered on its website, given that to do so would “unduly inhibit” its
right to lawfully offer genuine goods.
The Lanham Act false advertising claim failed because of the
CDA.  “[L]iability lies with the vendors
who created the misleading content, not the service providers who transmit that

The court also dismissed a Sherman Act monopoly claim
because, among other things, search engine ads are interchangeable with the
larger market of all internet ads, so there was no monopsonized relevant market,
and there were multiple competing purchasers. 

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s