Blast from the past: another keyword ad case where TM won’t work

Int’l Payment Servs., LLC v. Cardpaymentoptions.com, Inc.,
NO. 2:14-cv-02604, 2015 WL 12656280 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2015)
Old decision, popped up in Westclip.  Plaintiff has a registration for ELITEPAY
GLOBAL for its merchant payment solutions equipment, services and training
business in the credit card processing industry.  CardPaymentOptions.com doesn’t provide credit
card processing services, but does get paid for running ads from processors.  CPO has a review page using IPS’s logo under
the heading “ElitePay Global Review.” The review is written by the website
owner; it rated IPS with a “C-” grade or 1.875 out of 5 stars, and there were
also more than 40 negative comments or reviews about IPS’s services (hello section 230), as well as
links other credit card service processors. 
In addition, CPO bought keyword ads for “ElitePay Global.”
Although summary judgment is usually disfavored in trademark
cases, nominative fair use can allow it. 
IPS’s services weren’t readily identifiable without use of the mark, and
there was no substitute for it in defendants’ AdWords campaign. Nor was the use
more than necessary, even though the mark was used over 50 times on CPO’s
webpage.  CPO was talking about IPS; such
referential uses are exactly what the nominative fair use doctrine is designed
to allow.  As for the AdWords campaign,
there was no evidence that defendants’ link regularly appeared above IPS’s
website in search results, meaning there was no genuine issue about whether the
use was more than necessary.
Finally, there was no suggestion of sponsorship or
endorsement, given the bad grade and associated negative comments and reviews.
The court rejected IPS’s argument that “there is no such thing as bad
publicity.” Likewise, the use of the mark in AdWords and CPO’s webpage path
(http://ift.tt/2mR48DI), didn’t
actively claim affiliation with or sponsorship by IPS. The Ninth Circuit has held
that “[o]utside the special case of trademark.com, or domains that actively
claim affiliation with the trademark holder, consumers don’t form any firm
expectations about the sponsorship of a website until they’ve seen the landing
page,” and that “[s]o long as the site as a whole does not suggest sponsorship
or endorsement by the trademark holder, … momentary uncertainty does not
preclude a finding of nominative fair use.”

Some false advertising-related state law claims survived,
but the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2mXEOxv

Advertisements
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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s