31:
287:
Lanham Act. Instead, the court held that "Google’s recommendation and sale of
Rescuecom’s mark to its advertising customers are not internal uses" and were a full business transaction. If the court were to accept Google's argument, "the operators of search engines would be free to use trademarks in ways designed to deceive and cause consumer confusion. This is surely neither within the intention nor the letter of the Lanham Act."
927:
315:
In 2010, Rescuecom moved to drop the proceedings against Google and issued a press release declaring victory in the case. However, Google apparently made no new concessions to
Rescuecom to get it to drop the lawsuit; instead, the changes that Rescuecom claimed as victory had been made by Google five
286:
precedent incorrectly, because Google's process of selling keywords for its AdWords service was a different type of business practice. The court rejected Google's argument that the inclusion of a trademarked term in an internal computer directory does not constitute "use" of that trademark under the
202:
is a system used by Google through which advertisers can purchase keywords. When a user searches for a purchased keyword, Google displays advertisements from the purchasing firm. Google also provides its advertising customers with a "Keyword
Suggestion Tool", which recommends additional keywords for
306:
the district court decision, ruling that Google's actions constituted commercial use and that
Rescuecom's claims of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and related claims could not be immediately dismissed as Google requested. The case was sent back to the district court for reconsideration
319:
Meanwhile, the original district court ruling was criticized for confusing the matter of "commercial use" of trademarked terms on the
Internet for advertising practices that would be permitted for traditional advertising, though the Second Circuit ruling on appeal has been cited as an important if
294:
precedent, the circuit court accepted
Rescuecom's assertion that Google's placement of "sponsored links" purchased by its AdWords customers, above organic search results at the google.com page, could lead consumers to conclude that such ads were associated with Rescuecom. As a result, Google's
265:
precedent, Rescuecom had "prove no facts in support of its claim... trademark use". Given that a trademark "use" is required under the Lanham Act for infringement to occur, the district court dismissed
Rescuecom's complaint. Rescuecom appealed this ruling to the
836:
258:. In that precedent, the court held that the usage of a trademarked domain name in an "unpublished directory of terms" and the appearance of "separate, branded ads" triggered by a trademark do not constitute "use" of the trademark under the Lanham Act.
278:
The Second
Circuit reversed the district court's decision in 2009, holding that Google's use of the "Rescuecom" trademark constituted a "use in commerce" under the Lanham Act, even when recommending it for purchase by its own advertising customers.
951:
240:
407:
713:
210:
by the company. Rescuecom further found that Google had recommended its name for purchase by some of
Rescuecom's own competitors. The company therefore filed suit against Google claiming violations of the
675:
203:
the customer to purchase. Rescuecom, a computer repair and service firm, discovered that Google had used its name during this process, and recommended it to it AdWords customers.
267:
176:
41:
698:
316:
years earlier. Thus it was unclear if Google had adjusted its AdWords recommendation process based on the circuit court ruling, or if
Rescuecom had realized any rewards.
859:
502:
606:
757:
961:
956:
966:
705:
394:
30:
748:
813:
773:
789:
729:
721:
667:
599:
528:
Fabian, Jeffrey S. (2008). "Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc.: A Misuse of the Federal Trademark Doctrine of Commercial Use".
765:
829:
976:
224:
506:
971:
930:
592:
566:
Atkinson, Katie (2009). "Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.: The Second Circuit Finds Trademark Use in Meta Elements".
821:
659:
643:
910:
886:
796:
216:
188:
109:
706:
United States v. Adobe Systems, Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corporation, Intuit, Inc., and Pixar
894:
843:
781:
228:
902:
851:
105:
626:
455:
379:
356:
184:
476:
433:
220:
547:
McKinney, Jessica A. E. (2009). "Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.: A Conscious Analytical Shift".
615:
133:
434:"Second Circuit Says Google's Keyword Ad Sales May Be Use in Commerce – Rescuecom v. Google"
303:
254:
based on a computer user's actions, with the ads being generated from a database of company
503:"Six-Year Court Battle Over AdWords Ends With Plaintiff Straddling Both Sides Of The Fence"
129:
125:
245:
945:
867:
296:
162:
429:
382: (United States District Court for the Northern District of New York 2006).
837:
Judgement of the German Federal Court of Justice on Google's autocomplete function
255:
101:
90:
Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., No. 5:04-CV-1055 NAM/GHL (N.D.N.Y Sep. 28, 2006)
212:
199:
158:
682:
251:
207:
180:
261:
In its ruling in the Rescuecom case, the district court held that, per the
243:
in 2006. The district court drew heavily on the Second Circuit precedent
584:
241:
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
714:
Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC and Ors.
231:
in business relations with an intent to gain economic advantage.
282:
The circuit court held that the lower court had interpreted the
588:
359: (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit 2009).
299:
next to a trademarked brand was rejected by the circuit court.
295:
argument that a sponsored link is analogous to placement of a
676:
Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.
187:
was a commercial use of the trademark, and could constitute
952:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cases
320:
uncertain precedent in the law of Internet advertising.
307:
of possible financial damages to be paid to Rescuecom.
290:
In another departure from the matters discussed in the
568:
Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property
177:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
42:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
878:
805:
740:
691:
635:
152:
144:
139:
121:
116:
94:
86:
81:
73:
65:
57:
47:
37:
23:
456:"Rescuecom Abandons Its Litigation Against Google"
104:business name to web users during the creation of
175:562 F.3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2009), was a case at the
860:Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González
250:concerning the use of software that generated
179:, in which the court held that recommending a
600:
8:
408:"Second Circuit Reverses Rescuecom v Google"
758:Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
607:
593:
585:
369:
367:
365:
29:
20:
392:1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU. Com, Inc.,
346:
344:
342:
340:
338:
336:
334:
332:
530:Journal of Business & Technology Law
246:1-800 CONTACTS, INC. v. WhenU. com, Inc.
496:
494:
328:
7:
749:Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
555:(1): 281–322 – via HeinOnline.
536:(1): 147–160 – via HeinOnline.
814:Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google, Inc.
774:Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
790:Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
668:Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.
311:Impact and subsequent developments
14:
574:: 303–312 – via HeinOnline.
962:United States trademark case law
926:
925:
239:The case was first heard by the
957:United States Internet case law
751:and A9.com Inc. and Google Inc.
268:Second Circuit Court of Appeals
967:2009 in United States case law
652:Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.
454:Eric Goldman (March 5, 2010).
172:Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.
52:Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.
1:
766:Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
501:Wendy Davis (March 5, 2010).
375:Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc
352:Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc
24:Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc
830:United States v. Google Inc.
730:United States v. Google LLC
722:United States v. Google LLC
225:false designation of origin
993:
235:District court proceedings
921:
622:
477:"David Versus Googleiath"
380:456 F.Supp.2d 393
206:The name "Rescuecom" was
157:
99:
28:
302:The Second Circuit thus
100:The recommendation of a
822:Hibnick v. Google, Inc.
660:Goddard v. Google, Inc.
644:Feldman v. Google, Inc.
911:Gonzalez v. Google LLC
887:Garcia v. Google, Inc.
797:Smartphone patent wars
217:trademark infringement
189:trademark infringement
110:trademark infringement
895:Google LLC v Defteros
844:Joffe v. Google, Inc.
782:Field v. Google, Inc.
741:Intellectual property
479:. Rescuecom.com. 2010
410:. Proskauer.com. 2009
357:562 F.3.d 123
274:Circuit court opinion
252:pop-up advertisements
229:tortious interference
903:Epic Games v. Google
852:Mosley v SARL Google
627:Criticism of Google
185:keyword advertising
16:American legal case
977:Online advertising
221:trademark dilution
972:Google litigation
939:
938:
616:Google litigation
432:(April 3, 2009).
168:
167:
134:Richard C. Wesley
984:
929:
928:
609:
602:
595:
586:
576:
575:
563:
557:
556:
544:
538:
537:
525:
519:
518:
516:
514:
509:on July 23, 2011
505:. Archived from
498:
489:
488:
486:
484:
473:
467:
466:
464:
462:
451:
445:
444:
442:
440:
426:
420:
419:
417:
415:
404:
398:
389:
383:
377:
371:
360:
354:
348:
117:Court membership
33:
21:
992:
991:
987:
986:
985:
983:
982:
981:
942:
941:
940:
935:
917:
874:
801:
736:
687:
631:
618:
613:
579:
565:
564:
560:
549:Iowa Law Review
546:
545:
541:
527:
526:
522:
512:
510:
500:
499:
492:
482:
480:
475:
474:
470:
460:
458:
453:
452:
448:
438:
436:
428:
427:
423:
413:
411:
406:
405:
401:
390:
386:
373:
372:
363:
350:
349:
330:
326:
313:
276:
237:
197:
148:Pierre N. Leval
130:Guido Calabresi
126:Pierre N. Leval
17:
12:
11:
5:
990:
988:
980:
979:
974:
969:
964:
959:
954:
944:
943:
937:
936:
934:
933:
922:
919:
918:
916:
915:
907:
899:
891:
882:
880:
876:
875:
873:
872:
864:
856:
848:
840:
834:
826:
818:
809:
807:
803:
802:
800:
799:
794:
786:
778:
770:
762:
754:
744:
742:
738:
737:
735:
734:
726:
718:
710:
702:
701:(2010–present)
699:European Union
695:
693:
689:
688:
686:
685:
680:
672:
664:
656:
648:
639:
637:
633:
632:
630:
629:
623:
620:
619:
614:
612:
611:
604:
597:
589:
583:
582:
578:
577:
558:
539:
520:
490:
468:
446:
421:
399:
397:(2d Cir.2005).
384:
361:
327:
325:
322:
312:
309:
275:
272:
236:
233:
196:
193:
166:
165:
155:
154:
150:
149:
146:
142:
141:
137:
136:
123:
122:Judges sitting
119:
118:
114:
113:
97:
96:
92:
91:
88:
84:
83:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
989:
978:
975:
973:
970:
968:
965:
963:
960:
958:
955:
953:
950:
949:
947:
932:
924:
923:
920:
913:
912:
908:
905:
904:
900:
897:
896:
892:
889:
888:
884:
883:
881:
877:
870:
869:
868:Frank v. Gaos
865:
862:
861:
857:
854:
853:
849:
846:
845:
841:
838:
835:
832:
831:
827:
824:
823:
819:
816:
815:
811:
810:
808:
804:
798:
795:
792:
791:
787:
784:
783:
779:
776:
775:
771:
768:
767:
763:
760:
759:
755:
752:
750:
746:
745:
743:
739:
732:
731:
727:
724:
723:
719:
716:
715:
711:
708:
707:
703:
700:
697:
696:
694:
690:
684:
681:
678:
677:
673:
670:
669:
665:
662:
661:
657:
654:
653:
649:
646:
645:
641:
640:
638:
634:
628:
625:
624:
621:
617:
610:
605:
603:
598:
596:
591:
590:
587:
581:
580:
573:
569:
562:
559:
554:
550:
543:
540:
535:
531:
524:
521:
508:
504:
497:
495:
491:
478:
472:
469:
457:
450:
447:
435:
431:
425:
422:
409:
403:
400:
396:
393:
388:
385:
381:
376:
370:
368:
366:
362:
358:
353:
347:
345:
343:
341:
339:
337:
335:
333:
329:
323:
321:
317:
310:
308:
305:
300:
298:
297:generic brand
293:
288:
285:
280:
273:
271:
269:
264:
259:
257:
253:
249:
247:
242:
234:
232:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
209:
204:
201:
194:
192:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
173:
164:
163:trademark law
160:
156:
151:
147:
143:
140:Case opinions
138:
135:
131:
127:
124:
120:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
93:
89:
87:Prior history
85:
80:
76:
72:
69:April 3, 2009
68:
64:
61:April 3, 2008
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
909:
901:
893:
885:
866:
858:
850:
842:
828:
820:
812:
788:
780:
772:
764:
756:
747:
728:
720:
712:
704:
674:
666:
658:
651:
650:
642:
571:
567:
561:
552:
548:
542:
533:
529:
523:
511:. Retrieved
507:the original
481:. Retrieved
471:
459:. Retrieved
449:
437:. Retrieved
430:Eric Goldman
424:
412:. Retrieved
402:
395:414 F.3d 400
391:
387:
374:
351:
318:
314:
301:
291:
289:
283:
281:
277:
262:
260:
256:domain names
244:
238:
215:, including
205:
198:
171:
170:
169:
153:Laws applied
108:constitutes
106:targeted ads
82:Case history
77:562 F.3d 123
51:
18:
636:Advertising
461:October 21,
439:October 21,
208:trademarked
102:trademarked
946:Categories
414:August 10,
324:References
213:Lanham Act
195:Background
159:Lanham Act
692:Antitrust
683:Jedi Blue
483:April 11,
181:trademark
931:Category
145:Majority
74:Citation
806:Privacy
304:vacated
200:AdWords
95:Holding
66:Decided
914:(2022)
906:(2021)
898:(2020)
890:(2015)
871:(2019)
863:(2014)
855:(2013)
847:(2013)
839:(2013)
833:(2012)
825:(2010)
817:(2009)
793:(2021)
785:(2016)
777:(2015)
769:(2015)
761:(2010)
753:(2007)
733:(2023)
725:(2020)
717:(2019)
709:(2011)
679:(2017)
671:(2012)
663:(2009)
655:(2009)
647:(2007)
513:May 2,
378:,
355:,
227:, and
58:Argued
879:Other
292:WhenU
284:WhenU
263:WhenU
38:Court
515:2011
485:2010
463:2010
441:2010
416:2011
183:for
223:,
948::
572:12
570:.
553:95
551:.
532:.
493:^
364:^
331:^
270:.
219:,
191:.
161:,
132:,
128:,
608:e
601:t
594:v
534:3
517:.
487:.
465:.
443:.
418:.
248:,
112:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
