WE TARGET TO ENHANCE CLARITY IN INDIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW/POLICY/INSTITUTIONS. WE ARE ALSO HERE FOR OBJECTIVE AND FAIR ANALYSIS/REPORTING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY/INNOVATION/DEVELOPMENT POLICY FROM INDIA.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., No. 06-4881
Appeal by Plaintiff Rescuecom Corp. from a judgment of the United States District Court
13 for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, Chief Judge) dismissing its action against
14 Google, Inc., under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
15 Rescuecom’s Complaint alleges that Google is liable under §§ 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15
16 U.S.C. §§ 1114 & 1125, for infringement, false designation of origin, and dilution of
17 Rescuecom’s eponymous trademark
This case is about deceptive similarity due to linking by a search engine called google.
In an action by the plaintiff as per the Lanham Act, for trademark infringement,trademark dilution, false designation of origin, district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is vacated and remanded. In this case plaintiff's allegations was that the Google recommended and sold some trade marks which was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs mark. The dfendants advertisers triggers the appearance of plaintiff's advertisements and links in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion when a Google user launches a search of plaintiff's trademark.This is the commercial use of the mark and a fit case under the Lanham Act.
Read Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., No. 06-4881
Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Argued: April 3, 2008 Decided: April 3, 3009, Errata Opinion: July 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)