Court: Buying A Personal Name As A Keyword For Advertising Is Not A Publicity Rights Violation

from the good-result,-bad-ruling dept

We've covered tons of lawsuits where companies were sued over claimed trademark infringement for buying ads based on trademarked keywords. While there are still some such lawsuits under way, for the most part, the courts have made it clear that just buying ads on a trademarked keyword is not a trademark violation. However, in the ever changing world of so-called "intellectual property" laws, things change all the time. We've been noting the dangerous rise of a hodgepodge of questionable state laws that create "publicity rights" for individuals, and now we've got a case where someone was sued for buying keyword advertising based on someone's name, with the plaintiff claiming that this was a privacy rights violation. The good news: the court didn't buy it and dismissed the lawsuit. The bad news, the court seemed confused and the reasoning isn't great. Eric Goldman explains:
The legal novelty of the ruling makes it an important early precedent, but the opinion is not especially persuasive. To me, the judge seemed overwhelmed by both the challenging legal doctrines and technology at issue in this case. In response, the judge issued one of the most citation-free opinions of its length that I have ever seen. This is not a scholarly opinion, and that makes less likely to influence other courts. It also means that an appellate court will likely give this opinion relatively low deference.

The fact that the court dismissed the lawsuit is, on its face, good news for both search engines and advertisers. However, I thought the judge's arguments were questionable and, at least at one crucial juncture, internally inconsistent. The ruling turned on a specific word in the Wisconsin publicity rights statute, and courts applying other statutes can easily distinguish this opinion if they want to rule for the plaintiffs. Therefore, this ruling could morph from a defense win into a plaintiff's friend depending on how future courts rely on and interpret it.
I'm sure we'll start to see more such lawsuits pretty soon, and hopefully some better, clearer rulings in response.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. icon
    JustMe (profile), Jun 14th, 2011 @ 4:29am


    Interesting. I'd like to see some of the lawyers chime in on this one in the comments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    JustMe (profile), Jun 14th, 2011 @ 1:34pm


    Looks like nobody cared about this one, Mike.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Geld, Jul 22nd, 2011 @ 9:55pm

    New insight

    That is new insight for me. but, whether using personal name like "Bill Gate" also violate of Publicity Rights if it is used to sell Microsoft products

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Sapuluh, Nov 26th, 2011 @ 6:19am

    hemm i dont know about this

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Jason Gray, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 6:50am


    All I know is when it comes to suing someone about privacy violation it can be hard to prove if you're the plaintiff.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    las vegas free picks, Dec 5th, 2012 @ 1:25am


    That is new insight for me.hemm i dont know about this

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Hide this ad »
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Hide this ad »
Recent Stories
Hide this ad »


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.