Rescuecom Corp. v. Computer Troubleshooters USA, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc.

    552 F. Supp. 2d 752 (N.D. Ill. 2008)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that plaintiff's allegations that plaintiff owns the "Vulcan Gulf" trademark and the "Vulcan Golf" tradename and that vulcanogolf.com violates plaintiff's trademark on that name are sufficient to establish a protectible interest at the motion to dismiss stage

    As already noted, given the complex nature of the allegations in the FAC, the court simply cannot make a definitive ruling on the "use" issue without engaging in fact-finding, which is inappropriate at this stage of the litigation. See Rescuecom Corp. v. Computer Troubleshooters, USA, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 1266-67 (N.D. Ga. 2005) (denying motion to dismiss on "use" issue of Lanham Act claim in similar context to the instant case stating that "[t]he Court's limited understanding of the matter suggests that this dispute does not seamlessly mesh with traditional Lanham analysis and that the transposition will require more factual development of the record than has been done at this early stage of the proceedings"). iii. Likelihood of Confusion

  2. T.D.I. International, Inc. v. Golf Preservations, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 6: 07-313-DCR (E.D. Ky. Jan. 31, 2008)

    Conversely, the Plaintiffs rely on a number of authorities in support of their position that the sale or purchase of a competitor's trademark as a search engine keyword violates the Lanham Act. See GEICO v. Google, Inc., 330 F. Supp. 2d 700, 704 (E.D. Va. 2004); Google, Inc. v. American Blind Wallpaper Factory, 74 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1385, 1389 (N.D. Cal. 2005); Buying for the Home, LLC v. Humble Abode, LLC, 459 F. Supp. 2d 310 (D.N.J. 2006); Edina Realty, Inc. v. The MLSonline.com, 2006 WL 737064 (D. Minn. March 20, 2006); J.G. Wentworth v. Settlement Funding, LLC, 2007 WL 30115 (E.D. Pa. January 4, 2007); Rescuecom Corp. v. Computer Troubleshooters USA, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (N.D. Ga. 2005); Int'l Profit Associates, Inc. v. Paisola, 461 F. Supp. 2d 672 (N.D. Ill. 2006). They further argue that the Sixth and Second circuit cases are distinguishable from the question presented here. Specifically, they note that Interactive Products did not involve the search engine keyword issue and, therefore, is not controlling here.

  3. Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc.

    456 F. Supp. 2d 393 (N.D.N.Y. 2006)   Cited 11 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding no use in commerce where a company used another company's trademark for sponsored link advertising in internet search engine

    irectory."), several district courts have reached different conclusions on this issue. Compare GEICO v. Google, Inc., 330 F.Supp.2d 700 (E.D.Va. 2004) (denying the defendant Internet search engines' motion to dismiss finding that the plaintiff adequately alleged that the defendants' use of plaintiff's trademark, GEICO, as a keyword to advertisers was a "use in commerce" and likely to cause confusion), claim dism'd, Order, Dec. 15, 2004 (dismissing Lanham Act claim following bench trial on finding no likelihood of confusion), Edina Realty, Inc. v. The MLSOnline.com, Civ. 04-4371, 2006 WL 737064 (D.Minn. Mar. 20, 2006) (denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment finding that the defendant's purchase of the plaintiff's trademark as a keyword to prompt the appearance of defendant's sponsored link advertisements was a "use in commerce"), Edina Realty, Inc. v. The MLSOnline.com, Civ. 04-4371, 2006 WL 1314303 (D.Minn. May 11, 2006) ( Edina II) (denying motion for reconsideration), Rescuecom Corp. v. Computer Troubleshooters USA, Inc., 1:04-CV-03499 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 16, 2005) (declining to dismiss the complaint which alleged that the defendant's purchase of the plaintiff's trademark from an Internet search engine as a keyword that would generate the appearance of the defendant's sponsored link was a "use in commerce" concluding that in view of the novel legal question presented, and the unsettled state of the law, resolution should await a factually developed record), Google v. American Blind Wallpaper Factory, Inc., C 03-05340, 2005 WL 832398 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 30, 2005) (denying Google's motion to dismiss in view of the unsettled state of the law and in order to await factual development of the record), and 800-JR Cigar, Inc., v. Goto.com, Inc., Civil Action No. 00-3179, 2006 WL 1971659, *8 (D.N.J. July 13, 2006) (denying summary judgment finding a question of fact as to whether the defendant "pay-for-priority" Internet search engine used the plaintiff's trademark within the meaning of the Lanham Act because there was evidence that the defendant accepted bi