Want to see our take on the most important Federal lawsuits dealing with the Internet and trademark infringement filed last week? We monitor the country daily and offer our thoughts about each. Just read on down to the bottom of this page and find out what practices are leading to lawsuits!

Online trademark law is a different beast. For one thing, infringements are seemingly everywhere. Your trademark lawyer needs to understand the online user, its habits, practices, and thoughts. The key to pursuing trademark infringement is often the existence of "consumer confusion". From a threshold standpoint, we ask ourselves as a trademark lawyer if the relevant consuming online public could be misled. So, whether the mark is being used in metatags, on redirect pages, through pay per click advertising, or in mass email, the impact of the use is a critical legal and business issue. As Internet trademark lawyers we help you identify the source of the trademark infringement, assess the significance of it, and then execute on an appropriate and measured response. Perhaps it calls for a telephone call, nice letter, a cease and desist or demand for licensing fees from us, or even a lawsuit. Maybe we go to another party like an ISP, payment processor, or search engine to solve the problem. As experienced trademark lawyers dealing with the law of the web exclusively, we work intellegently to find the best solution. Can your trademark lawyer give you this guidance? Each problem is different, the fundamental issue of whether damages could be recovered is at the forefront of every analysis, and in the end you are making an informed decision that makes business sense when you have an trademark lawyer who is an expert in web business.

Dozier Trademark Lawyer & Trademark Lawyers

We believe it is always better to understand the facts, the options, and the law before jumping into court. When it is the right move, though, we aggressively pursue and defend trademark infringement litigation across the country as trademark lawyers. Consider some of the matters we have worked on recently:

Our client, an Internet company, was sued on the West Coast in Federal Court for trade dress infringement by its primary competitor. Our client's site allegedly looked like a competitor's site.
Affiliate marketers were using a competitor's trademark in redirect pages without our client's knowledge, and suit was filed against our client.
Our client, an Internet company, was sued on the West Coast in Federal Court for trade dress infringement by its primary competitor. Our client's site allegedly looked like a competitor's site.
Affiliate marketers were using a competitor's trademark in redirect pages without our client's knowledge, and suit was filed against our client.
An online software developer and marketer was sued in the California in Federal Court for using an alleged competitor's name in software and selling it using a domain name that also infringed on the competitor's mark.
A competitor of our client sued in the Southeast US alleging trademark and trade dress infringement based upon the use of a similar website. These claims are "trade dress" claims, a form of false advertising.
Our client was allegedly using the same appearance as that used by a competing website for key functionality.
After acquiring a website, the Canadian seller launched a competing website that looked the same as our client's.
A competitor was using our client's trademark in meta tags and redirect pages in order to get a high ranking in leading search engines when our client was the subject of a search.
Our New Mexico client's valuable mark was being used by others around the world passing off unauthorized online products under the mark.
A Maryland based online club's domain name was taken by its volunteer webmaster, and a competing club was launched under the domain name.
A competitor alleged our Colorado client was keying off its trademark in presenting ads on Google, as well as exceeding fair use in its references to the competitor.
Our Florida client was sued in Federal Court in Nevada for alleged trademark infringement in advertising and cybersquatting.
Our California client's trademark was being used in meta tags and on a competing site's homepage to increase indexed organic ranking position on searches seeking our industry leading client.
Our California client is alleged to be infringing on the trademark and copyright of a major software company through the sale of products on e- Bay.
A Nevada client received a cease and desist for using product name on website when it was selling new and used products and therefore subject to the first sale doctrine and reseller protections.
A webhost pulled down our client's website for alleged trademark infringement under the law that only covers copyright infringement.
Client based in Florida was sued in California for trademark infringement and cyberpiracy of the domain name of a famous star.
Our US client's trademarked name was included in a listing of companies to avoid for fraud; our investigation revealed this site was controlled by a competitor and the Australian webhost pulled the site down for trademark infringement.
Our California client's competitors were using its trademark to trigger Google ads whenever search was conducted for our client's company and products.
Our Washington client was using a famous trademark in meta tags, its domain name, and in its homepage text.
A major US company sued our client in Federal Court in San Francisco over the alleged infringing use of a trademark protected product name in advertising and commerce on the web.
Our Texas client's business name was being used in its rival's text and on hidden redirect pages to gain the first result returned when our client was searched on Google.
A major ISP filed objections to the trademark application of our client, alleging cybersquatting and trademark infringement of its common law trademark.
Our client's website was selling a public domain software with enhancements and using the name of the software manufacturer. It received a cease and desist notice demanding that the name no longer be used based upon trademark law.
The issue of ownership of our client's name arose when a contractor got confused about the identity of its client and it turned out another company was using the same relatively generic term in the same industry.
A famous perfume company demanded damages from our client for selling designer clothes with the company name online, even though the clothes appeared to be legitimate.
Our client was an affiliate marketer for a major computer company, and commission revenue generated through domain names similar to the merchant's name was reversed by the computer company based upon claims of trademark infringement and cybersquatting.
A Fortune 500 manufacturer demanded transfer of a domain name advertising the sale of the manufacturer's used equipment, asserting fair use did not apply and our client was therefore infringing on its trademark rights.
Our client is a reseller of merchandise provided by a clearinghouse and responsible for managing the content on our client's site. Suit was filed in federal court in Chicago alleging trademark infringement and false advertising against our client for the actions of its supplier.
Our client was sued for trademark infringement by a major manufacturer after using the manufacturer's name to sell used goods.
A competitor of our client chose a domain name that was confusingly similar to our client, and made its website look the same, resulting in the assertion of a violation of the trade dress laws of the US.
Our client's application for registration of its name was opposed by a major financial company, claiming the likelihood that the public would be confused between its registered mark and our client's mark.
Our client sold apparel on Ebay that turned out to be counterfeit, and demand for payment of signficant damages and lawyer fees was made by the owner of the famous mark.
Claiming "trade dress infringement", a retailer sued our client, an internet start-up, in California and attempted to get it shut down.
Our client was sued for trademark infringement in Indiana for allegedly committing fraud on the Trademark office and using the plaintiff's trademark in business.
Microsoft filed suit in Seattle alleging our client was using its trademarks in marketing and selling products online, including use of its famous trademark in the advertisements run by our client and affiliates.
A group of homeowners starting a website with the same name as the property management company and lured advertisers away from our client's website by making false claims of ownership and control.
Our client's primary competitor sued in California alleging infringement of its trademark as set forth in the code of hypertext links on our client's site.
An Italian high-end leather retailer asserted a trademark claim against our client despite the fact that an authorized distributor had sold the products to our client and imported them into the US.
A website owned by a publicly traded internet marketing company was using our client's business name on its site to obtain high search engine results and then redirect a visitor to a competing product.
A "large box" home supply company started using our client's trademark as a department within its store and argued that since our client was an internet company there was no confusion among the public. We demanded, and intiated negotiations for, trademark licensing fees.
Our client received a cease and desist and demand letter from a major international jewelry manufacturer claiming sale of "knock-offs".
Despite owning a trademark, competitors had been using our client's mark in their online advertising and product names and descriptions to benefit from consumer confusion.
A major niche travel agency with a successful forum had competitors using its website and business name to lure customers to its own forum.
A famous sports figure's business retained us to defend a claim by a competitor of ownership of the entire industry's name.
Our client, an India-based software developer, was sued for trademark infringement in federal court in San Francisco because a major competitor claimed it used a product name first.
Amazon suspended our high volume discount store client after a trademark owner claimed infringement although our client was operating under a reseller agreement with an authorized distributor.
A major tennis shoe and sporting products company sued our online retailer client for trademark infringement for selling "seconds" and "rejects" procured from the legitimate and authorized manufacturer of the tennis shoes.
A skin care products company hired us to defend against claims of domain name hijacking and traditional trademark infringement for using terms that, the competitor argued, were confusingly similar to its registered trademarks.
Our UK client's ownership and use of certain domain names was challenged by a company in the EU claiming violations of European trademarks even though there were no registered or common law rights in the US.
A leading Washington DC based policy group found out that its new name had some prior users, and we advised our client as to how to avoid trademark infringement.
A competitor of our home furnishing client demanded that our client stop using certain terms it claimed were protected by trademark in its website content, claiming such use was unfairly optimizing search results.
Our global manufacturer client was retailing directly in the US, and a competing site selling competitor products was using our client's registered trademarks in its meta tags, in its website content, and in its HTML tagged headers on website pages.
A bulletin board "thread", purportedly a legitimate discussion, referenced our client's website and business name many times, was being used to obtain high organic results when our client's name was searched, and the board was carrying competitor advertising.
Our eBay retailer client was sued in federal court for alleged trademark infringement resulting from mislabelled goods sold on the site.
Our online jewelry retailer's trademark protected name was being used by a competitor to trigger pay per click advertisements.
Our venture capitalist client was concerned about potential conflicting names and possible future trademark infringement claims.
Universities claimed our client was using their trademarks without paying a license fee despite apparent fair use.
A major consumer goods company sued our client for trademark infringement in Florida, alleging that our client's water product distributed online was confusingly similar to the name of its candy products.
Distinctive creations identifiable as our client's work were being stolen and passed off as someone else's work.
A leading niche catalog retailer’s online competitor launched a new website with a very similar name as our client’s business name.
A competitor of our client retailer was using our client’s registered trademark in their Adwords advertisement description and leading potential customers to a negative “product review” of our clients product line.
Our national optical industry retailer retained us to resolve a potential trademark conflict arising from the use of a similar trademark by a small offline retailer.
A Canadian web hosting company retained us after it was sued for contributory trademark infringement when it mistakenly treated a notice of trademark infringement by a site it hosted as a DMCA copyright infringement take-down notice.
A national mail order catalog company with a significant web presence retained us to negotiate a new license and reseller agreement with its supplier after the supplier decided our client could no longer use the trademark of the products it sells online despite ten years of doing so.
Our e-retail toy manufacturer client had a competitor start using its name on its competing website in order to get indexed by the search engines when searches were performed for our client’s business name.
We were hired to negotiate web distribution rights for a product line limited to sale through off-line specialty stores only.
Competitors of our client were using its registered trademarks in Google Adwords advertisements and in hidden text on websites.
A generic and descriptive business name was used by our client and a competitor without a registered trademark asserted a trademark infringement claim.
Our small retail client was using a description of its goods that was thought to be a generic description but the originator of the description had a registered trademark and asserted infringement.
Oprah Winfrey asserted a trademark infringement claim for our client’s use of her name in the name of its business and website.
A Fortune 500 technology company sued our client for trademark infringement for running two websites with names arguably similar to that company’s registered trademarks.
A competitor of our client retained legal counsel to pursue our client for bidding on search terms containing the competitor’s name.
Our web client was describing the services it provides and mistakenly used a phrase protected by a registered trademark and owned by a competitor.
A major lady’s accessory retailer asserted a trademark infringement claim for allegedly selling “knock offs” even though our client had assurances the products were legitimate.
A recording artist’s girlfriend, running his website, stole the site and products and continued to operate the site after their relationship had ended.
Our website client has a claim of infringement served on him for the name he had used for years.
A major ad network was served with a trademark infringement claim based upon an advertiser’s alleged use of a leading entertainment company’s trademarks.
A domain name owner was accused of trademark infringement in its advertising obtained from Adsense and other advertising management and distribution services.
Our online jewelry client selling “inspired by” jewelry was the recipient of a claim by a leading designer for copyright and trademark infringement.

If you have a trademark, or you operate a business with a name that is associated with you, the odds are high that someone online might try to benefit from your name. The most important issue is to be able to identify the problem before you lose your shirt and your trademark. That's where a trademark lawyer with an expertise in online law can help. The second issue is to make sure you understand the facts, the law, and the options available. Of course, trademark lawyers living and breathing nothing but the law of the web day in and day can deliver quality insight and solutions. We give you the advice and options that make sense, that take into consideration the business realities of the harm, and that will most likely lead you towards the best business result. Considering the fact that most trademark infringement centers upon the "likelihood of consumer confusion", wouldn't you rather have a trademark lawyer Internet expert making that assessment?

Trademark Lawyer Free Consultation

Just go to our contact page and give us a call for a free consultation with Mr. Dozier, an expert Internet trademark lawyer, and see what Dozier Internet Law can do for you as trademark lawyers specializing in the online world.

Trademark Lawyer Suit Summary

Set forth below is one of our summaries of a United States District Court federal lawsuit. If you are interested in reading about other lawsuits, in the order of most recent Federal Court filings first, you will find a link just below the case. Please understand that all facts, as well as references to the basis of the lawsuit, are our summarization of the allegations made by the party bringing the lawsuit. The facts may prove to be true or not true, and the plaintiff may or may not win the case. The bolded comments are Mr. Dozier's thoughts about the suit. Pay particular attention to the alleged conduct or practice that has resulted in the litigation. For a small business, litigation is expensive. As a trademark lawyer law firm, we are hired to file and defend suits nationwide, and we can also assist you in minimizing your risk in advance.

COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE, LLC v. BRIAN MOSES REALTY, ET AL. DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 1:08-CV-00050

When can you use the trademark of a party with whom you have a business relationship? Typically it is governed by written contract. If not, then by oral agreement. If there was no oral agreement, then the courts will look to other well established legal principles like fair use, waiver and promissory estoppel. In order to hold onto a trademark, appropriate "policing" is required, so plaintiffs are sometimes forced into trademark lawsuits. Monitor and police your trademarks or you'll be at risk of having every competitor use your name with impunity.

Plaintiff is a widely known franchisor of real estate services. It allows franchisees to use and promote its "Coldwell Banker" mark. In 1996 Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with Defendants that clearly explained the rights and obligations of both parties. Upon the expiration of the franchise agreement, Defendants refused to pay their royalty and advertising fees. In 2001 Defendants assumed the rights and responsibilities of another franchisee of the Plaintiff. This second agreement again clearly explained the rights and obligations of both parties. It was set to expire in 2011. During the term of this second agreement, Defendants started to render services for a competing business. As this was a material breach of the agreement, Plaintiff provided notice that Defendants were terminated as a franchisee. However, Defendants continue to advertise their association with Plaintiff by using Plaintiff's marks on their website and on other websites.

Plaintiff has filed suit in federal court in New Hampshire, alleging breach of contract, federal trademark infringement, federal false designation of origin and federal trademark dilution. Plaintiff also alleges common law trademark infringement, unfair competition under New Hampshire law, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff has asked the Court to order Defendants to stop using the Plaintiff's marks in an infringing manner, to destroy all infringing material in their possession, to pay treble damages to Plaintiff and to pay costs and attorneys' fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1038.

Want to see the latest court filings with Mr. Dozier's take on the cases? Visit the Dozier Federal Court Report section dedicated to trademark infringement lawsuits: Trademark Infringement Lawyer Case Notes. And, if you would like to browse copyright infringement, domain name dispute, and trade secret lawsuits, and get a good idea of who is getting sued for what, you can go to the Dozier Federal Court Report Portal.

Dozier Internet Law Firm Computer Keyboard Photograph

"Thank goodness for John and his team. With their trial record, technology expertise, and legal and business perspective, they have been a godsend...."

— Internet Content Company CEO.

Domainers		SEOs		Affiliates		Mailers
	Registrars		New Media		Retailers		Marketers
Pro Athletes		Hosts		Developers		Municipalities