App. del 2 circuito 08.10.2024, 1-800 contacts inc. d. Jand inc. afferma quanto nel titolo.
<<As outlined above, three components to a search advertising campaign are
relevant for our analysis of whether 1-800 has sufficiently alleged trademark
infringement by Warby Parker: first, the defendant’s purchase of a competitor’s
marks as keywords; second, the ads placed on the search results page for the
competitor’s marks; and third, the defendant’s landing webpage to which its ads
are linked. Thus, the central question in this case is whether 1-800 has sufficiently alleged a likelihood of confusion arising from Warby Parker’s use of 1-800’s Marks (i.e., 1800 Contacts,” “1 800 Contacts,” “1800contacts.com,” and “1800contacts”) in the keyword bidding process, the search ads, and/or the linked landing webpage. (….)
Further, in the search advertising context, an alleged infringer’s
purchase of a keyword comprising a competitor’s trademark constitutes a “use in
commerce” of such trademark under the Lanham Act. See Rescuecom Corp., 562
F.3d at 127 (holding that complaint regarding Google’s AdWord’s
recommendation of plaintiff’s trademark to plaintiff’s competitors “adequately
plead[ed] a use in commerce” under the Lanham Act)
(…)
1-800 alleges that Warby Parker made an infringing use of 1-800’s Marks in
the first component of its search advertising campaign: the keyword purchase.
However, as described above, the mere act of purchasing a competitor’s
trademarks as keywords in the search advertising context does not constitute
trademark infringement or unfair competition. See id. at 130. Warby Parker’s
purchase of 1-800’s Marks, standing alone, does not infringe 1-800’s Marks because “a defendant must do more than use another’s mark in commerce to violate the Lanham Act.” Id. The statute requires a showing that the defendant’s use caused consumer confusion. (….)
we conclude that 1-800 has failed to sufficiently plead that Warby Parker’s advertising plan was likely to confuse consumers at any point in the sales process because 1-800 does not claim that Warby Parker actually used the former’s Marks other than by buying them as keywords in the search engine auctions, and such use alone does not create a likelihood of consumer confusion>>
analoga soluzione probabilmente anche in base al nostro art. 20.2 cpi.-
La sentenza poi passa ad esaminare la confondibilità delle “landing pages”, negandola.
(notizia e link da Eric Goldman blog)