Keyword Advertising With Competitor's Trademark Was Not Evidence Of Bad Faith

FK
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz

Contributor

Frankfurt Kurnit provides high quality legal services to clients in many industries and disciplines worldwide. With leading practices in entertainment, advertising, IP, technology, litigation, corporate, estate planning, charitable organizations, professional responsibility and other areas — Frankfurt Kurnit helps clients face challenging legal issues and meet their goals with efficient solutions.
In ZW USA, Inc. v. PWD Systems, LLC, plaintiff ZW is the owner of federal registrations for the trademarks ONEPUL and ZEROWASTE for doggie waste disposal bags.
United States Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In ZW USA, Inc. v. PWD Systems, LLC, plaintiff ZW is the owner of federal registrations for the trademarks ONEPUL and ZEROWASTE for doggie waste disposal bags. Defendant PWD also sells doggie waste disposal bags under the name BagSpot, and uses the phrase "one-pull" to describe some of its products. ZW sued PWD, alleging infringement of its ONEPUL mark. 

In support of its infringement claim, ZW pointed to PWD's purchase of the Google Adword "zerowaste," another of ZW's federally registered trademarks for doggie waste disposal bags. ZW argued that PWD's use of a phrase allegedly similar to one ZW trademark, and purchase of an adword identical to another ZW trademark — all to advertise the same goods that ZW sold — demonstrated PWD's bad faith in adopting the "one-pull" phrase in its marketing.

The Eighth Circuit disagreed. In holding that PWD did not infringe ZW's ONEPUL trademark, the court said PWD's purchase of the "zerowaste" adword "might be relevant if we were analyzing [alleged infringement of] a 'zerowaste' trademark, but the issue in this case is the likelihood of confusion between ZW's ONEPUL mark and PWD's product description." Since the adword PWD purchased was different from the trademark ZW claimed was infringed, the court found that PWD's purchase of "zerowaste" as an adword constituted "only minimal evidence that PWD intended to do anything but fairly compete with ZW in the dog-waste disposal industry." The decision demonstrates a broader acceptance of keyword advertising as acceptable competition in the eyes of federal courts. 

www.fkks.com

This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More