Internet trademark infringement activity typically has not involved the “product” paradigm contemplated in Inwood. Courts considering these types of cases have therefore had to determine whether to extend the Inwood standard beyond the manufacturer-distributor context, as they had done in the flea market cases, Hard Rock Café and Fonovisa, supra. The standard for imposing contributory [...]
Domain name registrars have not ordinarily been held contributorily liable for trademark infringement committed by their registrants. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions Inc., 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Lockheed II”), affirming 985 F.Supp. 949 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (“Lockheed I”); Size, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 255 F. Supp.2d 568 (E.D. Va. 2003); [...]
The Lockheed formula has been applied to subsequent contributory liability claims arising out of various other Internet activities. Thus, to hold a defendant liable for contributory infringement on an Internet website, a plaintiff must prove both that it directly controlled and monitored the activities of the infringing website, and that the defendant had actual or [...]
When courts consider search engine company liability for trademark infringement, whether direct or indirect, they typically focus on the sale of “trademarked” keywords, or search terms, to third parties for use in advertising and directing internet traffic to websites that compete with the trademark owner. See e.g., Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123 [...]
Courts have suggested that internet service providers (ISPs) may, in appropriate circumstances, bear contributory liability for trademark infringement by the websites or other end users they service. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 985 F.Supp. 949, 962 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (dicta), aff’d, 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999); Gucci America, Inc. v. Hall [...]
