Do Adjacent Organic Search Results Constitute Trademark Infringement? Of Course Not…But…–America CAN! v. CDF


One of the screenshots from the complaint

A charitable fundraising organization, America CAN!, has a registered trademark in the phrase “Write off the car, not the Kid.” The organization purports to help the education of high risk youths, and it claims that “100% of the net proceeds go to the kids.” So the “kid” in the trademarked phrase appears to refer to disadvantaged youths, not tax writeoffs for being a parent. As a parent, the pun didn’t work for me.

The lawsuit relates to Make-a-Wish North Texas, but it isn’t named as a defendant. Instead, the lawsuit targets several subcontractors who accept car donations on behalf of Make-a-Wish and do some donation solicitations. Some of the defendants run a website, “Wheels for Wishes.” The plaintiff alleged:

CDF—which performs essentially the same charitable function as America CAN!—has a website that appears in search results near America CAN!’s website when users search America CAN!’s trademark, “Write off the car, not the Kid” ® on Yahoo and Google.

Based on this allegation, the court says that the trademark owner properly alleged trademark infringement sufficient to overcome a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Say what?

The court doesn’t expressly explain that it’s addressing organic search results listings, but the screenshots in the complaint make that clear. The opinion does expressly say that this isn’t a case involving competitive keyword ads. There is some discussion about metatagging. The defendants’ briefs apparently correctly destroyed the legal consequences of metatags, but the court lets the trademark owner sidestep this by saying that the trademark owner doesn’t rely exclusively on metatag claims.

So, as far as I can tell, the trademark owner is suing merely because rivals have adjacent search results in the organic search results for the phrase “Write off the car, not the Kid.” If that sounds crazy, that’s because it is. We can say with 100% confidence that mere adjacency doesn’t constitute trademark infringement (also see my expert report in Larsen v. Larson). Plus, there are many legitimate and socially beneficial reasons why other car donation websites would appear in organic results for that search phrase.

The defendants argued that the trademarked phrase didn’t appear in the search results, so there couldn’t be any consumer confusion. The court responds that trademark visibility isn’t required for a successful trademark claim, citing Abraham v. Alpha Chi OmegaMary Kay v. Weber, and Clearline Technologies v. Cooper B-Line. In a footnote, the court says the “defendants’ recitation of other federal district courts’ holdings of this issue is not determinative since the court is not obligated to follow the law of sister circuits, however persuasive.”

What a maddening ruling! This is a crazy lawsuit that is swimming massively upstream against the tide of decade-old precedent. I don’t understand why the judge is so conciliatory to the trademark owner in this case. Maybe the judge doesn’t like 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. Maybe the judge is overly impressed with the trademark registration. Whatever the case, I sure hope the judge’s tenor changes on summary judgment.

This case reminds me of the Alzheimer charities’ battle royale over keyword ads and more, which converted so many donation dollars into private school tuition for the lawyers’ kids. Can’t charities find a way to work together rather than burn up their charitable donations on lawsuits? It’s even worse when the trademark owner seems to rely on some, uh, unorthodox views of trademark law. Charities need to protect their donors from being fleeced, but I’m not sure this lawsuit is about protecting consumers.

Worse, the car donation business strikes me as a categorically shady niche. The complaint repeatedly alleges how donated car revenues are being siphoned off before they reach Make-a-Wish North Texas. Then again, America CAN!’s phrasing about 100% of their NET proceeds going to help the kids leaves open the obvious question: what percentage of gross proceeds translates into net proceeds? It wouldn’t surprise me if that percentage is an unimpressive number. Still, donors to either “charity” may not really care where the revenues go if they can overstate the car’s value on their tax returns.

Case citationAmerica CAN! v. Car Donations Foundation, 2019 WL 1112667 (N.D. Tex. March 11, 2019). The complaint.

More Posts About Keyword Advertising

The Ongoing Saga of the Florida Bar’s Angst About Competitive Keyword Advertising
Your Periodic Reminder That Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Passport Health v. Avance

Another Failed Trademark Suit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising–JIVE v. Wine Racks America
Negative Keywords Help Defeat Preliminary Injunction–DealDash v. ContextLogic
The Florida Bar and Competitive Keyword Advertising: A Tragicomedy (in 3 Parts)
Another Court Says Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesn’t Cause Confusion
Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesn’t Show Bad Intent–ONEpul v. BagSpot
Brief Roundup of Three Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Developments
Interesting Tidbits From FTC’s Antitrust Win Against 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Restrictions
1-800 Contacts Charges Higher Prices Than Its Online Competitors, But They Are OK With That–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
Amazon Defeats Lawsuit Over Its Keyword Ad Purchases–Lasoff v. Amazon
More Evidence Why Keyword Advertising Litigation Is Waning
Court Dumps Crappy Trademark & Keyword Ad Case–ONEPul v. BagSpot
AdWords Buys Using Geographic Terms Support Personal Jurisdiction–Rilley v. MoneyMutual
FTC Sues 1-800 Contacts For Restricting Competitive Keyword Advertising
Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Will Go To A Jury–Edible Arrangements v. Provide Commerce

Court Beats Down Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit–Beast Sports v. BPI

Keyword Ad Lawsuit Isn’t Covered By California’s Anti-SLAPP Law
Confusion From Competitive Keyword Advertising? Fuhgeddaboudit
Competitive Keyword Advertising Permitted As Nominative Use–ElitePay Global v. CardPaymentOptions
Google And Yahoo Defeat Last Remaining Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising
Mixed Ruling in Competitive Keyword Advertising Case–Goldline v. Regal
Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Infogroup v. DatabaseLLC
Damages from Competitive Keyword Advertising Are “Vanishingly Small”
More Defendants Win Keyword Advertising Lawsuits
Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails Badly
Duplicitous Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuits–Fareportal v. LBF (& Vice-Versa)
Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v. OxBlue
Want To Know Amazon’s Confidential Settlement Terms For A Keyword Advertising Lawsuit? Merry Christmas!
Florida Allows Competitive Keyword Advertising By Lawyers
Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Unceremoniously Dismissed–Infostream v. Avid
Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Allied Interstate v. Kimmel & Silverman
More Evidence That Competitive Keyword Advertising Benefits Trademark Owners
Suing Over Keyword Advertising Is A Bad Business Decision For Trademark Owners
Florida Proposes to Ban Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers
More Confirmation That Google Has Won the AdWords Trademark Battles Worldwide
Google’s Search Suggestions Don’t Violate Wisconsin Publicity Rights Law
Amazon’s Merchandising of Its Search Results Doesn’t Violate Trademark Law

With Its Australian Court Victory, Google Moves Closer to Legitimizing Keyword Advertising Globally
Yet Another Ruling That Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Louisiana Pacific v. James Hardie
Another Google AdWords Advertiser Defeats Trademark Infringement Lawsuit
With Rosetta Stone Settlement, Google Gets Closer to Legitimizing Billions of AdWords Revenue
Google Defeats Trademark Challenge to Its AdWords Service
Newly Released Consumer Survey Indicates that Legal Concerns About Competitive Keyword Advertising Are Overblown

One of the screenshots from the complaint

One of the screenshots from the complaint

One of the screenshots from the complaint

One of the screenshots from the complaint

The post Do Adjacent Organic Search Results Constitute Trademark Infringement? Of Course Not…But…–America CAN! v. CDF appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.


Tags: Google, Amazon, Florida, Yahoo, Law, California, Marketing, America, Search Engines, Trademark, BPI, Ftc, Weber, Florida Bar, Cooper, Abraham, North Texas, Larson, Larsen, CDF, Jive, Infogroup, ElitePay Global, CardPaymentOptions Google, Fareportal, EarthCam, Infostream, Avid Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails, Allied Interstate, AdWords Trademark Battles Worldwide Google, Louisiana Pacific, AdWords Revenue Google, Lasoff, Goldline, ONEPul, Rilley, MoneyMutual FTC, Provide Commerce Court, DealDash, ContextLogic, Three Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Developments, America CAN, Alpha Chi Omega Mary Kay, Clearline Technologies, Car Donations Foundation

Source:  https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/03/do-adjacent-organic-search-results-constitute-trademark-infringement-of-course-not-but-america-can-v-cdf.htm



Related:
December 27, 2018 at 10:27 AM The Ongoing Saga of the Florida Bar’s Angst About Competitive Keyword Advertising
August 19, 2018 at 12:15 PM Another Failed Trademark Suit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising–JIVE v. Wine Racks America
August 14, 2018 at 5:25 PM Negative Keywords Help Defeat Preliminary Injunction–DealDash v. ContextLogic
August 8, 2018 at 11:16 AM The Florida Bar and Competitive Keyword Advertising: A Tragicomedy (in 3 Parts)
December 27, 2016 at 12:57 PM More Evidence Why Keyword Advertising Litigation Is Waning