Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.

Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.
Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.
Court	United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case name	Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.
Decided	March 8, 2011
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Stephen S. Trott, Kim McLane Wardlaw, & Michael W. Mosman.

Last updated May 21, 2022

Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011) was a court case decided on March 8, 2011, where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the use of a competitor's trademark as an Internet search advertising keyword did not constitute trademark infringement. In the case, Network Automation advertised their own competing product in search queries that contained Advanced Systems Concepts' "ActiveBatch" trademark. In determining whether trademark infringement occurred, the court evaluated factors relevant to the likelihood of customer confusion outlined in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats^[1] and concluded that confusion was unlikely.^[2]

Background
Trademark infringement background
Holding of the district court
Opinion of the Ninth Circuit
Strength of the Mark
Proximity of Goods
Similarity of Marks
Evidence of Actual Confusion
Type of Goods and Degree of Care
Marketing Channels
Defendant's Intent
Likelihood of Expansion of the Product Lines
Other Relevant Factors
Conclusion
References
Further reading

Background

Google and other Internet search engines and e-commerce sites have made search engine keyword advertising ubiquitous. Network Automation ("Network") and Advanced Systems Concepts ("Systems") both sold job scheduling and management software that were advertised on search engine results. Network's product was called Automate, and Systems' product was called ActiveBatch. Network decided to buy the keyword "ActiveBatch" so that when users searched for "ActiveBatch", Network's website would be displayed as a sponsored link in separate sections from search results, including Google Search and Microsoft Bing. Systems sent a letter to Network saying Network's usage of "ActiveBatch" as a keyword was infringing Systems' trademark rights. As a result, Network filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory judgement of non-infringement. Subsequently, Systems counterclaimed, and asserted trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114^[3] and therefore sought a preliminary injunction against Network's usage of "ActiveBatch".^[2]

Trademark infringement background

An essential condition for trademark infringement is customer confusion. A 1979 Ninth Circuit Court case, AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, identified eight factors in determining whether confusion between related goods was likely:

strength of the mark
proximity of the goods
similarity of the marks
evidence of actual confusion
marketing channels used
type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
defendant's intent in selecting the mark
likelihood of expansion of the product lines^[1]

In 1999, another Ninth Circuit Court case, Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. , determined that of the eight Sleekcraft factors, three of them were the most significant for cases involving the Internet, which are known as the "Internet trinity" or "Internet troika".^[2]

the similarity of the marks
the relatedness of the goods and services offered
the simultaneous use of the Internet as a marketing channel^[4]

The Brookfield case also emphasized flexibility in applying the law to the Internet, a new, emerging technology:

We must be acutely aware of excessive rigidity when applying the law in the Internet context; emerging technologies require a flexible approach.
— Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1054 (9th Cir. 1999).^[4]

Holding of the district court

The district court ordered a preliminary injunction against Network using the "ActiveBatch" mark.^[2] The district court analyzed the eight Sleekcraft factors and emphasized that the "Internet troika" from Brookfield were most significant, and found that they all favored Systems. The court's decision relied on Network usage of an identical mark, "ActiveBatch", to sell a product directly competing with Systems' product, and the fact both Network and Systems used the Internet to advertise. The district court also concluded that many of the other Sleekcraft factors were in favor Systems, including the degree of consumer care because "there is generally a low degree of care exercised by Internet consumers."

Network promptly appealed.

Opinion of the Ninth Circuit

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision in the case's reconsideration. It concluded that the likelihood of confusion was insufficient to support trademark infringement and therefore removed the injunction placed on Network. The Ninth Circuit clarified that in its ruling for Brookfield, it did not intend the "Internet troika" as the rigid test for trademark infringement on the Internet. Rather, it re-emphasized that the factors and principles considered in Sleekcraft are non-exhaustive and should be applied flexibly in the context of Internet commerce and other emerging technologies. The Ninth Circuit Court decided that the district court applied the Brookfield factors too rigidly, and emphasized flexibility over rigidity for the "Internet troika" from Brookfield.^[2]

Relevant factors the Ninth Circuit considered are:

the strength of the mark
evidence of actual confusion
the type of goods and degree of care exercised by consumers
the appearance of the advertisements and their surrounding context on search engine results

Strength of the Mark

The Ninth Circuit Court concluded that this factor favored Systems, since the mark "ActiveBatch" was the name of Systems' product, and also a federally registered trademark. Any consumer searching for "ActiveBatch" were more likely to be looking for the specific product and not a category of goods.^[2]

Proximity of Goods

The products from Systems and Network were virtually interchangeable, so the district court considered this factor in isolation, and found it in favor of Systems. However, the Ninth Circuit Court concluded that this factor should be considered with other factors such as the labeling and appearance of the advertisements, and the consumers' degree of care. The federal court concluded that the district court weighed this factor too heavily, without considering the fact that the two companies were direct competitors.^[2]

Similarity of Marks

The test for similarity of two marks compares the sight, sound and meaning of the marks. This comparison is impossible when two distinct trademarks do not exist. The district court incorrectly treated the "ActiveBatch" keyword bought by Network, and the ActiveBatch product from Systems as two different marks. The federal court concluded that the "ActiveBatch" keyword purchased by Network is the same trademark as of the ActiveBatch product, so a similarity comparison was not relevant.^[2]

Evidence of Actual Confusion

Evidence of actual confusion is not necessary to prove likelihood of consumer confusion so the Ninth Circuit Court agreed with the district court in that this factor was given no weight.^[2]

Type of Goods and Degree of Care

The federal court found that the district court incorrectly concluded that this factor was in Systems' favor on the fact that in the 1999 Brookfield case, Internet users exercised a low degree of care. Internet users no longer exhibit a low degree of care for many situations. The Ninth Circuit Court also concluded that the type and cost of the product affects the degree of care by the consumer. A consumer of expensive, business software is more likely to understand search engines and sponsored advertisements, and thus be less likely to be confused.^[2]

Marketing Channels

The federal court decided that this factor is less important when the marketing channel is not obscure. Internet advertising was becoming ubiquitous, so sharing the same marketing channel does not reveal any information on the likelihood of consumer confusion. The district court incorrectly weighed this factor in favor of Systems.^[2]

Defendant's Intent

The Ninth Circuit Court concluded that the district court incorrectly considered this factor in isolation and presumed that Network knowingly used a similar trademark to deceive consumers. Since Network was providing a product in competition with ActiveBatch, Network was not trying to mislead consumers, but to inform them of other choices of comparable products.^[2]

Likelihood of Expansion of the Product Lines

The district court correctly disregarded this factor, since the likelihood of expansion does not apply when the two companies are direct competitors.^[2]

Other Relevant Factors

The eight Sleekcraft factors were never meant to be an exhaustive list. The appearance of the advertisements were also an important factor. The district court correctly analyzed the advertisement texts, and concluded that the text did not clearly identify the source, which could have led to consumer confusion. However, the Ninth Circuit Court found that the advertisements for both Google Search and Microsoft Bing were segregated from the search results, and were labeled as "sponsored links", so confusion was less likely.^[2]

Conclusion

This was an important case for keyword advertising since the opinion strongly suggested that keywords involving trademarks were not infringing. In addition, the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court suggested that previous court case rulings involving trademark infringement on the internet depended too rigidly on specific factors, and did not consider the whole picture in the context of new emerging technologies.^[5] The results of this case will make it more difficult for future plaintiffs complaining about trademark infringement with keyword advertising.^[6]

Related Research Articles

A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark. The goal is to allow consumers to easily identify the producers of goods and services and avoid confusion.

Trademark dilution is a trademark law concept giving the owner of a famous trademark standing to forbid others from using that mark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness. In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another's trademark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with, those of the trademark owner. For example, a famous trademark used by one company to refer to hair care products might be diluted if another company began using a similar mark to refer to breakfast cereals or spark plugs.

Google Ads is an online advertising platform developed by Google, where advertisers bid to display brief advertisements, service offerings, product listings, or videos to web users. It can place ads both in the results of search engines like Google Search and on non-search websites, mobile apps, and videos. Services are offered under a pay-per-click (PPC) pricing model.

<i>Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles</i>

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050 was a United States district court case between former 1981 Playboy Playmate of the Year ("PMOY") Terri Welles and Playboy Enterprises, Inc. in which Welles was accused of trademark infringement and trademark dilution in her use of Playboy's trademarked terms in the metatags of her website.

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).

Trademark Trade identifier of products or services

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies products or services from a particular source and distinguishes them from others. The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving Perfect 10, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc. and Google, Inc. The court held that Google's framing and hyperlinking as part of an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative, overturning most of the district court's decision.

Initial Interest Confusion is a legal doctrine under trademark law that permits a finding of infringement when there is temporary confusion that is dispelled before the purchase is made. Generally, trademark infringement is based on the likelihood of confusion for a consumer in the marketplace. This likelihood is typically determined using a multi-factor test that includes factors like the strength of the mark and evidence of any actual confusion. However, trademark infringement that relies on Initial Interest Confusion does not require a likelihood of confusion at the time of sale; the mark must only capture the consumer's initial attention.

<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.

Google, Inc. v. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Inc., No. 5:03-cv-05340, was a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The court concluded that, pending the outcome of a jury trial, Google AdWords may be in violation of trademark law because it (1) allowed arbitrary advertisers to key their ads to American Blind's trademarks and (2) may confuse search-engine users initially interested in visiting American Blind's website into visiting its competitors' websites.

The case Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation, 174 F.3d 1036, heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, established that trademark infringement could occur through the use of trademarked terms in the HTML metatags of web pages when initial interest confusion was likely to result.

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.

Playboy v. Netscape, 354 F.3d 1020 was a case regarding trademark infringement and trademark dilution decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Playboy Enterprises Inc. took legal action against Netscape Communications Corp. and Excite, Inc., accusing them of infringement and dilution of Playboy's marks "playboy" and "playmate".

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.

Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. 600 F.3d 93, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which plaintiff Tiffany & Co. filed the complaint, first in 2004, alleging that eBay constituted direct and contributory trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising since it facilitated and advertised counterfeit Tiffany jewelries on its online market. On July 14, 2008, the District Court for S. D. N. Y. decided in favor of eBay on all claims. Tiffany appealed these decisions to the Second Circuit. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court with respect to the claims of trademark infringement and dilution. The false advertising claim was returned to the district court for further processing, which was then ruled in favor of eBay.

College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc., No. 09-50596 was an unpublished appellate level case in the Fifth Circuit that upheld a district court jury decision to dismiss the purchase of trademarked keywords as infringing. The original suit was brought on a claim of trademark infringement in the purchase of certain advertising keywords that the defendant countered with claims of defamation and tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations. The main issue addressed in the appeal was the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the counterclaims of the defendant. The court upheld the lower court's ruling, but vacated the award for tortious interference.

Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, 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

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.

Google France SARL and Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08), also known as Google v. Louis Vuitton was a landmark decision in which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that search engines operators such as Google do not themselves infringe trademark rights if they allow advertisers to use a competitor's trademark as a keyword.

References

1 2 "AMF, Inc v Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (C.A.9) 1979".
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 "Opinion for: NETWORK AUTOMATION, INC. V. ADVANCED SYSTEMS CONCEPTS, INC".
↑ 15 U.S.C. § 1114
1 2 Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation, 174 F.3d 1036 Archived 2009-09-29 at the Wayback Machine (9th Cir. 1999) (opinion full text).
↑ "Ninth Circuit Decision Protects Keyword Advertising Against Trademark Claim".
↑ "Ninth Circuit Establishes Factors to Determine Keyword Advertising Infringement".