Recently, the Second Circuit Court in New York heard oral arguments concerning Rescuecom V. Google. If Rescuecom eventually wins, the case could have strong implications as to the future of trademark use.

Here’s what’s going on in language I can understand. Google makes its money by selling ads, just like television networks, radio shows, and other forms of media. Unlike this other media, Google sells ‘keywords’ or AdWords to sponsors so their site pops up when a user types in something specific. For example, if you search for ‘monkeys’ a link to PawsWeb.org displays on the far right with the header, “Adopt a Monkey”. PawsWeb.org ‘bought’ the keyword “monkeys” so that every time someone does a search for that term, their site displays. Whenever someone clicks their link, they pay Google some amount of money. Lawyerahead.ca generates vast of amount of traffic by purchasing keywords also. For example the keyword ‘Lawyer‘.  This is good for Google (revenue) and good for PawsWeb.org (increased monkey adoptions). But, what if you typed in something more specific, let’s say a company’s name and a link with that same company’s name (but not the company itself) appears in the top and side ad bars? Thinking it’s the actual company, you click on the link and are directed to some other company’s website.

That’s basically what the case is about. Rescuecom is suing Google because they auctioned the AdWord “Rescuecom” to someone. So whenever you searched (it doesn’t work anymore) for “Rescuecom” a link up top and a link on the side displayed that had nothing to do with the company, Rescuecom. This, as Rescuecom argues, creates confusion and infringes upon their trademark.

The case was dismissed years ago, but the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York decided the lower court was wrong to dismiss it. The panel claimed that, “If the searcher sees a different brand name as the top entry in response to the search for ‘Rescuecom,’ the searcher is likely to believe mistakenly that the different name which appears is affiliated with the brand name sought in the search.”

Oral arguments for the case are rather entertaining and can be viewed here.

World-renowned karate master and Total Gym spokesman, Chuck Norris is suing Penguin publishing. The suit, filed in New York, alleges that Penguin committed trademark infringement, unjust enrichment and violated Mr. Norris’ privacy rights by publishing the book entitled, The Truth About Chuck Norris: 400 facts about the World’s Greatest Human.

null

Carlos Ray Norris (Chuck’s real name) claims, “The book’s title [will] mislead readers into thinking the facts [are] true.” The lawsuit alleges that, “Some of the ‘facts’ in the book are racist, lewd or portray Mr. Norris as engaged in illegal activities.”

These “facts” have developed quite a following over the last few years. People seem rather interested to know that Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because the only element he recognizes is the element of surprise. I myself was shocked to learn that “fighting Chuck Norris is what Meatloaf wouldn’t do for love.”

This is not the first time Chuck Norris has filed a lawsuit. According to sources, Mr. Norris, “Once sued Gillette because Chuck Norris is the best a man can get.” Apparently, Chuck is “also suing ‘Myspace’ for taking the name of what he calls everything around you.”

Penguin beware. Mr. Norris is known to be able to kill two stones with one bird.

For info on Trademarks and Infringements post your case to Toronto Lawyers, Vancouver Lawyers or a local Lawyer in your area.

So today we’ve got a set of strange lawsuits that have, wonderfully in both cases, been decided against their respective plaintiffs. In the first, the lawyer for the Wyrd Sisters, a band from Winnipeg who sued Warner Brothers for trademark infringement (over the Harry Potter movies’ depiction of a band called the “Weird Sisters,”), tried to sue the judges who decided that case, claiming a vast conspiracy to fix the case against them. (Yes, really). The second’s a bit more pedestrian, I suppose, as it’s from Wayne Crookes, the Green Party campaign manager, who sued over… links. On internet sites. to unfavorable articles about him. (Suing people for things they didn’t write- brilliant! of course you were going to win that one).

So apparently the Wyrd sisters and their lawyer, Kimberly Townley-Smith, first sued Warner Brothers in 2005, to try to prevent the release of one of the Harry Potter movies, because it was a trademark infringement. (The books and movies feature a band, “The Weird Sisters,” that the Wyrd Sisters objected to as violating their trademark). So, after losing that first trademark infringement lawsuit, (where they not only asked for an injunction to prevent the film’s release, to have DVDs, CDs, video games, and all sorts of other Harry Potter related crud that mentioned the Weird Sisters destroyed, but for $40 million as well), they apparently became convinced that the courts were fixed against them. And that there was some large conspiracy, to have their case thrown out.

Their lawyer, Townley-Smith, accused the judges named in the second lawsuit of “conspiracy, skulduggery, lying, case-fixing and criminality.” Yeah, really. Well, this lawsuit’s been thrown out, and the judicial reaction to it has been (not unexpectedly, if you’ve got your brain on) incredibly unfriendly. Not only do judges enjoy judicial immunity, but it’s apparently really bad form for a lawyer to sue another member of the bar, and even worse to try and both represent a client and act as a witness for their case. They’ve called this second lawsuit “scurrilous” and chucked it out the door. They’ve also said that they think that Townley-Smith may, herself, be held responsible for all the legal fees involved in this, because of the gross misconduct on her part.

Wayne Crookes’s case (lord, what a name) is, somehow, more sane. Crookes sued the site p2pnet.net for posting links to American sites that were defamatory, and Crookes claimed that linking to such statements was the same as making them oneself, and was defamation. The judge, however, Justice Stephen Kelleher, from the B.C. Supreme Court, dismissed this lawsuit. He compared “hyperlinking” (to use the 90’s idiom) to footnoting or citing, which, in a sense, is kind of obvious.

This is also the sort of case that has these really obvious implications for the rest of the internet (to adopt the bloggy idiom). I mean, if you can’t link to stuff without worrying about getting sued for their content… well, that sort of just takes down the whole internet! (I mean, seriously, the Drudge Report would be gone. Just gone. I wouldn’t cry for Matt Drudge, though I’d certainly cry if we went down). The US already protects internet service providers from content that goes through their tubes, so this was our first sort of Canadian attempt at solving these problems. Well, it’s good to know the internet will survive for another day.