Lo studio legale JIM ADLER (che usa chiamarsi The Texas Hammer!) , specialista in risarcimento del danno alla persona, nota che un centro di liquidazione sinistri ha acquisto il suo nome nel c.d keyword advertising tramite motori di ricerca e gli fa causa, invocando la violazione della legge marchi.
In primo grado non ha successo ma in appello si: v. l’appello del 5 circuito 10.08.2021, Case: 20-10936 , Jim S. Adler PC +1 c. McNeil Consultants, L.L.C ed altri.
Si trattava di un c.d. click to call advertisment (porta ad un call center): <If a user clicks on the advertisement using a mobile phone, the advertisement causes the user’s phone to make a call rather than visit a website. McNeil’s representatives answer the telephone using a generic greeting. The complaint alleges that the ads “keep confused consumers, who were specifically searching for Jim Adler and the Adler Firm, on the phone and talking to [McNeil’s] employees as long as possible in a bait-and-switch effort to build rapport with the consumer and ultimately convince [the consumer] to engage lawyers referred through [McNeil] instead.”>.
I requisiti della fattispecie di violazione sono indicati alle pp. 6/7.
Il punto più interessante è che nella fattispecie concreta l’uso del marchio ADLER da parte del convenuto non è visibile ai consumatori, p. 10.
La corte di appello però non ritien tale caratteristica decisiva: la visibilità/riconoscibilità non è necesaria per accogliere la domanda di contraffazione e il precedente invocato non porta l’effetto voluto dai convenuti: <<In support of its conclusion that the use of a trademark must be visible to a consumer, the district court2 relied on 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 722 F.3d 1229, 1242–49 (10th Cir. 2013). In that case, though, the Tenth Circuit explicitly avoided deciding whether a Lanham Act claim requires that the use of a trademark be visible to the consumer. The district court in the case had observed that a user who sees sponsored advertisements has no way of knowing whether the defendant reserved a trademark or a generic term. Id. at 1242–43. The district court explained that “it would be anomalous to hold a competitor liable simply because it purchased a trademarked keyword when the advertisement generated by the keyword is the exact same from a consumer’s perspective as one generated by a generic keyword.” Id. at 1243.
The Tenth Circuit noted that the argument had “some attraction” but then stated that “if confusion does indeed arise, the advertiser’s choice of keyword may make a difference to the infringement analysis even if the consumer cannot discern that choice.” Id. The Tenth Circuit’s reasoning reflects that the absence of the trademark could be one but not the only factor to consider in evaluating the likelihood of confusion. Ultimately, that court concluded that it “need not resolve the matter because 1–800’s directinfringement claim fails for lack of adequate evidence of initial-interest confusion.” Id.
We conclude that whether an advertisement incorporates a trademark that is visible to the consumer is a relevant but not dispositive factor in determining a likelihood of confusion in search-engine advertising cases>>
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog di Eric Goldman)