Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.

Last updated
Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Full case nameLens.com, Inc., Appellant, v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Appellee.
DecidedAugust 3 2012
Citation(s)686 F.3d 1376
Case history
Prior history92,049,925 (USPTO (2011))
Holding
A trademark granted in connection with "computer software" can be considered abandoned if the registered holder merely uses the computer software in a manner that is "incidental" to its retail sales of other goods. Computer software used in that manner may, as a determination of fact, not be considered a "good" that is "sold or transported in commerce" for the purposes of 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Pauline Newman, Richard Linn, Kimberly Ann Moore
Case opinions
MajorityLinn, joined by a unanimous court
Laws applied
15 U.S.C.   § 1064, 15 U.S.C.   § 1127 (Lanham Act)

Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which ruled that when software merely acts as a "conduit" for providing services over the internet, and does not have an independent value per se, it does not constitute a "good" being "sold or transported in commerce" for the purposes of establishing whether or not a trademark for "computer software" has been "abandoned" under 15 U.S.C.   § 1064 and 15 U.S.C.   § 1127 (the relevant sections of the federal Lanham Act.) [1]

Contents

The case was important because it clarified the Federal Circuit's view of the "use in commerce" requirement for trademarks when a non-traditional use of the trademark was employed. This had implications for trademark holders who held "computer software"-related intellectual property and sold goods over the internet. This also affected trademark holders who used their marks in non-traditional manners, [2] or those whose marks were inappropriately described in the trademark filing. [3]

Background of the case

The parties were both competing retailers of contact lenses and related products. In 2001, Lens.com had attempted to register the trademark LENS in connection with "retail store services featuring contact eyewear products rendered via a global computer network." [1] The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the application, citing the prior registration of the same trademark by another company in connection with "computer software featuring programs used for electronic ordering of contact lenses in the field of ophthalmology, optometry and opticianry." [1] Lens.com was eventually assigned this prior-registered trademark by the other company as part of the settlement of a lawsuit. However, Lens.com did not proceed to register the trademark LENS in connection with retail store services as it had previously attempted to do. It continued selling contact lenses to consumers through its website.

In 2008, the appellee/plaintiff 1-800 Contacts filed an application with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel the LENS trademark, alleging among other things that the appellant/defendant Lens.com had abandoned the trademark because it had never sold or engaged in the trade of "computer software". [1] In 2010, the TTAB agreed, stating that Lens.com's "software [wa]s merely incidental to its retail sale of contact lenses, and [wa]s not a ‘good in trade,’ i.e., "solicited or purchased in the market place for [its] intrinsic value." [4]

Lens.com's motion for a reconsideration of its decision was denied by the TTAB later in 2010, and the USPTO shortly thereafter proceeded to cancel the trademark. [5] Lens.com appealed the cancellation decision to the Federal Circuit Court, which issued its decision on August 3, 2012.

Decision

The Court found in favour of the appellee/plaintiff, 1-800 Contacts, affirming the decision of the TTAB below it.

The fact that Lens.com did not sell software was not contested in the appeal. Thus, under 15 U.S.C. § 1127(1)(B), the only way in which Lens.com could prove it was using the trademark and had not abandoned it would be to prove that its software was "transported in commerce." Citing In re Shareholders Data, 495 F.2d 1360, 1361 (CCPA 1974), the Court found that an article would not qualify as such when that article is "simply the conduit through which [the applicant] renders services." [1] Further, it recalled the "well-established" principle from Shareholders Data that when an article "has no independent value apart from the services, such article is not likely to be an independent good in trade." [1]

Despite a glut of precedent regarding "goods in trade" used in conjunction with services, the Court noted the lack of precedent in the internet services context on the issue of whether such service providers' software was an "independent good in commerce", and therefore properly the subject of a trademark in its own right, or "merely incidental" to the services over the internet, and therefore not. [1] The Court stated that the case of Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2001), showed that in some cases the distribution of software over the internet could satisfy the requirement. However, it held that such a determination should be made on a factual, case-by-case basis. The Court also affirmed that the applicable test was "whether the software: (1) is simply the conduit or necessary tool useful only to obtain applicant's services; (2) is so inextricably tied to and associated with the service as to have no viable existence apart there from; and (3) is neither sold separately from nor has any independent value apart from the services". [1]

Applying these principles to the case at hand, the Court found that Lens.com's software was "merely the conduit" for its online retail sales services, and was "inextricably intertwined" with it. The Court found "no evidence" that the software had any "independent value." [1] It distinguished Planetary Motion because the nature of the software at issue, a webmail site called "Coolmail", was different than any "software" used by Lens.com to sell its contact lenses over the internet. In Planetary Motion, consumers associated the mark Coolmail with the software itself, whereas in Lens.com's case, consumers associated the mark LENS with the contact lens service, not the software. Thus, it concluded that Lens.com's trademark was not in "use in commerce" in association with software, thereby affirming the decision of the TTAB below to cancel the trademark. [6]

Finally, the Court did not accede to Lens.com's second avenue of argument, that the TTAB had erroneously relied on only part of Lens.com's application file in making its decision. Based on the record of the decision below, the Court found that the TTAB had properly considered the entire application file. [7]

Subsequent developments

While this case was ongoing, the two parties were also embroiled in other trademark litigation. Approximately one year following this decision, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided another controversy between 1-800 Contacts and Lens.com, this time over the latter's use of its competitor's trademark in Google adwords as a means of redirecting customers to its own website. [8] The Tenth Circuit held that Lens.com did not commit trademark infringement when it purchased search advertising using 1-800 Contacts' federally registered 1800 CONTACTS trademark as a keyword.

In August 2016, the Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint against 1-800 Contacts alleging, among other things, that its search advertising trademark enforcement practices have unreasonably restrained competition in violation of the FTC Act. 1-800 Contacts has denied all wrongdoing and is scheduled to appear before an FTC administrative law judge in April 2017. [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is an administrative tribunal within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The TTAB is empowered to determine the right to register a trademark. It has no authority to determine the right to use one, nor broader questions of infringement, unfair competition, damages or injunctive relief. The TTAB decides ex parte appeals from decisions by USPTO Examiners denying registration of marks, and inter partes proceedings challenging the registration of marks. Decisions of the TTAB may be appealed to a United States district court, or to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

<i>Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo</i> U.S. trademark law case

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44, is a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia considered the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel the registration of the Washington Redskins football team, based on the claim that the name was disparaging to Native Americans. The Court of Appeals did not actually reach the merits of the TTAB's decision; it sent the case back to the trial court for consideration of a procedural issue.

Concurrent use registration Federal trademark registration of the same trademark to two or more unrelated parties

A concurrent use registration, in United States trademark law, is a federal trademark registration of the same trademark to two or more unrelated parties, with each party having a registration limited to a distinct geographic area. Such a registration is achieved by filing a concurrent use application and then prevailing in a concurrent use proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), which is a judicial body within the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). A concurrent use application may be filed with respect to a trademark which is already registered or otherwise in use by another party, but may be allowed to go forward based on the assertion that the existing use can co-exist with the new registration without causing consumer confusion.

1-800 Contacts Inc. is an American contact lens retailer based in Draper, Utah. The brands that 1-800 Contacts use includes Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Alcon, Bausch & Lomb and CooperVision. In 2006, its last year as a public company, the company reported net sales of US$247 million.

Keyword advertising is a form of online advertising in which an advertiser pays to have an advertisement appear in the results listing when a person uses a particular phrase to search the Web, typically by employing a search engine. The particular phrase is composed of one or more key terms that are linked to one or more advertisements. The most common form or keyword advertising, focused on payment methods, is pay per click (PPC), with other forms being cost per action (CPA) or cost per mille (CPM).

Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases refers to a growing set of judicial precedents in American courts where personal jurisdiction has been asserted upon defendants based solely on their Internet activities. Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions, and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court.

Doctrine of foreign equivalents Rule in trademark law

The doctrine of foreign equivalents is a rule applied in United States trademark law which requires courts and the TTAB to translate foreign words in determining whether they are registrable as trademarks, or confusingly similar with existing marks. The doctrine is intended to protect consumers within the United States from confusion or deception caused by the use of terms in different languages. In some cases, a party will use a word as a mark which is either generic or merely descriptive of the goods in a foreign language, or which shares the same meaning as an existing mark to speakers of that foreign language.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an international non-profit advocacy and legal organization based in the United States.

<i>Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci</i> American legal case

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1430, an early Internet domain trademark infringement case heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, established the theory that hosting a site under a domain name that was the registered trademark of a third party constituted trademark infringement. The case was also important in determining what constitutes "Use in Commerce" under the Lanham Act in cyberspace. Although these holdings were modified and overruled by various American courts following the decision, Bucci stands as a seminal case for being one of the first cases to address these issues.

<i>Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc.</i>

Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. was a trademark infringement case based on the use of an internet service mark. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona was asked to review whether the allegedly infringing use of a service mark in a home page on the World Wide Web suffices for personal jurisdiction in the state where the holder of the mark has its principal place of business. The Cybersell holding illustrated that passive websites do not establish personal jurisdiction outside the state in which they are based.

Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act.

<i>Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.</i> American legal case

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. 562 F.3d 123, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which the court held that recommending a trademark for keyword advertising was a commercial use of the trademark, and could constitute trademark infringement. The case involved Rescuecom, a computer repair and support company, and Google, a web search and advertising company. Prior to the case's resolution, Google recommended the 'Rescuecom' trademark to businesses, that were buying keywords through Google's AdWords product.

<i>Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King</i> American legal case

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25, is a 1997 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case that helped define the parameters of personal jurisdiction in the Internet context, specifically for passive websites that only advertise local services. The opinion, written by Judge Ellsworth Van Graafeiland, affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's holding that defendant Richard B. King's Internet website did not satisfy New York's long-arm statute requirements for plaintiff Bensusan Restaurant Corporation to bring a trademark infringement suit in New York. The District Court's decision also likened creating a website to merely placing a product into the stream of commerce, and held that such an act was insufficient to satisfy due process and personal jurisdiction requirements.

CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case that disputed patent eligibility for the '154 patent, which describes a method and system for detecting fraud of credit card transactions through the internet. This court affirmed the decision of United States District Court for the Northern District of California which ruled that the patent is actually unpatentable.

Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that, under the Lanham Act, a claim of trademark dilution requires proof of actual dilution. This decision was later superseded by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA).

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decides issues of patentability. It was formed on September 16, 2012, as one part of the America Invents Act. Prior to its formation, the main judicial body in the USPTO was the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).

<i>Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.</i>

Rosetta Stone v. Google, 676 F.3d 144, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The Court overturned a grant of summary judgment for Google that had held Google AdWords was not a violation of trademark law.

Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18–302, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case related to the registration of trademarks under the Lanham Act. It decided 6–3 that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks of "immoral" or "scandalous" matter is unconstitutional by permitting the United States Patent & Trademark Office to engage in viewpoint discrimination, which violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the trademarkability of a generic terms appended with a top-level domain (TLD) specifier. The Court ruled that such names can be trademarked unless the existing combination of term and TLD is considered to have a generic meaning to consumers.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686F.3d1376 (Fed. Cir.2012).
  2. ↑ Glover, Jerry (2012-08-16). "Federal Circuit Clarifies Meaning of "Use in Commerce" for Trademarks". Leavens, Strand, & Glover, LLC. Retrieved 2014-10-06.
  3. ↑ Amato, Yuo-Fong (2012-12-01). "Federal Circuit Affirms Cancellation of Registration Where Goods Were Misidentified". Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. Retrieved 2014-10-26.
  4. ↑ Lens.com, supra, at 3.
  5. ↑ Ibid.
  6. ↑ Lens.com, supra, at 12.
  7. ↑ Lens.com, supra, at 12–13.
  8. ↑ 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 722F.3d1229 (10th Cir.2013).
  9. ↑ David O. Klein & Joshua R. Wueller, Trademark Enforcement and Internet Search Advertising: A Regulatory Risk for Brand Owners, IP Litigator, Nov./Dec. 2016.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.