We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-9 of 9

Jury returns contributory trademark infringement verdict against web site hosting and SEO services provider for a client's sales of counterfeit golf clubs

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 19 2011

A recent jury verdict of $770,750, in statutory damages for secondary trademark infringement against Bright Builders, a Web hosting and SEO service provider, will serve as a reminder to service providers that there is no statutory safe harbor for contributory online trademark infringement

Employer may have violated Lanham Act, state right of publicity, in impersonation of employee on social media

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 5 2011

An employer that is alleged to have posted messages impersonating an employee on her personal Facebook and Twitter pages while she was recuperating from an accident may be liable under the Lanham Act for false endorsement and under the Illinois right of publicity, a district court ruled

In keyword advertising dispute, Ninth Circuit says trademark infringement requires more than initial interest confusion

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 5 2011

Courts must be flexible in applying the law in the Internet context, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit emphasized in a dispute involving the use of trademark terms in keyword advertising

Employee's single online sale of counterfeit item to investigator, coupled with employer's business activity, establishes in personam jurisdiction under New York law

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2010

An employee's single act of shipping a counterfeit item into New York, combined with his employer's substantial activity involving New York, supports the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the employee under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302(a), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled

No trademark infringement in search engine's sale of trademarks to generate search advertisements

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2010

A search engine's sale of trademark terms to third parties to generate search advertisements does not constitute trademark infringement, a district court ruled

Credit card services firms with knowledge of sales of infringing merchandise may be liable for trademark infringement

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 1 2010

In Gucci America, Inc. v. Laurette Co. No. 1:2008cv05065 (S.D.N.Y.), the luxury goods manufacturer succeeded in shutting down a Web site called "TheBagAddiction.com" through which the defendants sold counterfeit Gucci handbags

License language in contract may render search ad provider liable under ACPA for providing ads to parked domain names

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 29 2010

A provider of search ads to registrants of parked domain names alleged to infringe trademarks may be liable under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act as an "authorized licensee" of the registrants, a district court ruled

Alleged cybersquatter's inclusion of commercial self-promotion on gripe site precludes dismissal of trademark and cybersquatting claims

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 29 2010

A former law firm associate who registered a ".net" domain name identical to the ".com" domain name of his former employer and used the domain name to host a "gripe site" containing criticism of the firm and its employees was not entitled to dismissal of trademark infringement and cybersquatting claims, a district court ruled

No DMCA or trademark liability for provider of online printing services for removal of material deemed infringing

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 29 2010

An online printing services provider is not liable for removal of user content that it deems infringing or otherwise objectionable, a district court ruled