non-lawyer’s purchase of “trademark attorney” as a keyword doesn’t itself plausibly deceive consumers

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. Swyers, No.
17-cv-07318-MMC, 2018 WL 3439371 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2018)
LegalForce alleged that defendants operated “TTC Business
Solutions,” providing “trademark related services,” and that they “engag[ed] in
the unlawful practice of law” as well as in false advertising.  LegalForce further alleged that the USPTO
prevented LegalForce from competing with defendants by enforcing its
“regulations” and “rules” against LegalForce RAPC but not against defendants.
The false advertising claims had to satisfy Rule 9(b)
because they used the words “false” and “misleading” [pause to note my
disagreement with this idea, especially when trademark infringement claims don’t
have to do so, but this is certainly a common result], and they didn’t because
there wasn’t sufficient detail about where the statements were made (what part
of the defendants’ website), etc. This disposed of claims based on the allegedly false “Created by Former USPTO Attorneys,” “Trusted by Over 100,000 Businesses Since 2003,”  and  “As featured in Time, Yahoo! Finance, and CNNMoney.com.”
Additionally, the claim “#1 in Trademark Registrations,” absent
further context, was puffery: a “general assertion[ ] of superiority” that
lacks “the kind of detailed or specific factual assertions that are necessary
to state a false advertising cause of action.” 
Claims based on defendants’ purchase of keywords related to
the practice of trademark filing, including “trademark attorney” and “trademark
lawyers,” were also dismissed. 
Plaintiffs alleged that purchasing keywords including defendant’s
website name “Trademarkia” led consumers to believe that they’d receive the
same attorney-led trademark filing services from both parties. Again, the
claims failed to satisfy 9(b) by, among other things, failing to identify the
ad copy that allegedly misled consumers or falsely compared the parties.  Furthermore, plaintiffs’ theory that consumers
who ended up on defendants’ website after searches for “trademark attorney,”
“trademark lawyers,” or “Trademarkia” were likely to be deceived would require
a a showing that the website was “likely to mislead consumers” into believing the
website was affiliated with an attorney. But the complaint failed to allege
sufficient facts to support such a finding, particularly given plaintiffs’
acknowledgement that the website states that the website operator “is not a law
firm and,” that “its trademark filing service is not a legal service,” and that
it “may not perform services performed by an attorney.”
The same fate awaited allegations that the “design” of the
website has “substantially the same logo, look, feel, and trade dress” as a
related entity’s website, which entity was
a law firm, allegedly misleading consumers into “the false impression that the
two websites are run by the same or similar entities or lawyers.”
Claims against the USPTO for deprivation of due process also
failed.  Plaintiffs alleged that the
USPTO has deprived LegalForce RAPC of its “right to engage in [its] chosen
occupation,” which is “practicing trademark law,” by promulgating a number of
regulations, and requiring LegalForce RAPC, but not defendants, to comply with
them. Such a claim requires a plaintiff to show “first, that [it is] unable to
pursue an occupation in the [chosen field], and second, that this inability is
due to actions that were clearly arbitrary and unreasonable.” But LegalForce
RAPC didn’t allege that it was unable to pursue the practice of trademark law;
instead, plaintiffs alleged that it “has been the largest law firm filer of
trademarks before the USPTO for the past five years.” So too with equal
protection claims, which when based on an unequal enforcement theory require
that “the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such
as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” There were no such
allegations.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2O43zDt

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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