Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2008/04/08.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:37:40+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,743, April 8, 2008.
April 8, 2008, Alert No. 1,743.
4/7. The U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) issued its opinion [33 pages in PDF] in North American Medical Corporation v. Axiom Worldwide, a trademark infringement case involving the use of meta tags in the source code of web pages.
Summary. The District Court held that when a product manufacturer holds trademarks for its product names, and a competing manufacturer uses those trademarked terms in the meta tags of its web site, this can constitute trademark infringement. It held that in this case the defendants infringed trademarks.
The District Court also granted a preliminary injunction based upon a presumption, rather than a showing, of irreparable harm.
The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court as its finding of trademark infringement, but overturned the preliminary injunction.
It remanded the case to the District Court to consider the Supreme Court's May 15, 2006, opinion [12 pages in PDF] in eBay v. MercExchange, which held that the traditional four factor framework that guides a court's decision whether to grant an injunction applies in patent cases.
Background. North American Medical Corporation (NAM) makes physiotherapeutic spinal devices to treat lower back pain. Moreover, it has registered trademarks for the names of two of its products. Adagen Medical International, Inc. distributes what NAM makes.
Axiom Worldwide, Inc., makes a product that competes with NAM's products. Axiom also operates a web site. It included NAM's trademarked product names in the meta tags in the source code of it web pages.
The Court of Appeals wrote this description. "Meta tags consist of words and phrases that are intended to describe the contents of a website. These descriptions are embedded within the website’s computer code. Although websites do not display their meta tags to visitors, Internet search engines utilize meta tags in various ways. First, when a computer user enters particular terms into an Internet search engine, the engine may rank a webpage that contains the search terms within its meta tags higher in the list of relevant results. Second, when a particular webpage is listed as a relevant search result, the search engine may use the meta tags to provide the searcher a brief description of the webpage."
NAM and Adagen filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDGa) against Axiom and two of its officers alleging trademark infringement and false advertising. They also sought injunctive relief.
Axiom stopped using NAM's trademarks in its meta tags. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of NAM and Adagen, prohibiting Axiom from using NAM’s trademarks within meta tags.
Axiom brought the present appeal.
Statute. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) provides, in part, that "(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant (a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive ... shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant ..."
Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's finding of trademark infringement, but vacated the injunction, and remanded to the District Court with instruction to consider eBay v. MercExchange.
The Court of Appeals quoted the 11th Circuit standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction: "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying case, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, (3) the harm suffered by the movant in the absence of an injunction would exceed the harm suffered by the opposing party if the injunction issued, and (4) an injunction would not disserve the public interest."
Axiom argued that meta tags are not "use in commerce" within the meaning of Section 1114, and that there was no likelihood of confusion.
The Court of Appeals concluded that "Because Axiom’s use of NAM’s trademarks constitutes a ``use in commerce´´ in connection with the advertisement of goods, and because the district court did not clearly err in its factual finding that a likelihood of confusion exists, NAM and Adagen demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their trademark infringement claims."
It wrote that "we readily conclude that the facts of the instant case do involve a ``use´´ as contemplated in the Lanham Act – that is, a use in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods. ... The facts of the instant case are absolutely clear that Axiom used NAM’s two trademarks as meta tags as part of its effort to promote and advertise its products on the Internet. Under the plain meaning of the language of the statute, such use constitutes a use in commerce in connection with the advertising of any goods."
Axiom also relied upon the 2nd Circuit's 2005 opinion [PDF] in 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400. However, the Court of Appeals distinguished that case on the grounds that it involved use of unprotected domain names, rather than protected trademarks. It also added that the 2nd Circuit's "analysis is questionable".
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the District Court's finding of likelihood of confusion. It noted that the evidence showed that if an internet user entered the trademarked terms for NAM's products into a Google search, then Google produced as the second result a listing and description of Axiom's web page, with the two trademarked terms.
The Court of Appeals elaborated that "Consumers viewing these search results would be led to believe that Axiom’s products have the same source as the products of the owner of the ... trademarks, or at least that Axiom distributed or sold all of the products to which the brief description referred, or that Axiom was otherwise related to NAM. This, of course, is misleading to the consumer because Axiom is not related in any way to NAM, nor does Axiom distribute or sell the products of NAM."
However, the Court of Appeals held that NAM failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. The District Court presumed irreparable harm. The Court of Appeals vacated the preliminary injunction.
The Court of Appeals wrote that while "our prior cases do extend a presumption of irreparable harm once a plaintiff establishes a likelihood of success on the merits of a trademark infringement claim", the Supreme Court's opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange "calls into question" this line of cases.
The Court of Appeals wrote that "Although eBay dealt with the Patent Act and with permanent injunctive relief, a strong case can be made that eBay’s holding necessarily extends to the grant of preliminary injunctions under the Lanham Act."
Hence, "we conclude that the Supreme Court’s eBay case is applicable to the instant case." But, it then qualified this conclusion.
"However, we decline to express any further opinion with respect to the effect of eBay on this case", the Court of Appeals added. "For example, we decline to decide whether the district court was correct in its holding that the nature of the trademark infringement gives rise to a presumption of irreparable injury. In other words, we decline to address whether such a presumption is the equivalent of the categorical rules rejected by the Court in eBay."
It explained. "We decline to address such issues for several reasons. First, the briefing on appeal has been entirely inadequate in this regard. Second, the district court has not addressed the effect of eBay. Finally, the district court may well conclude on remand that it can readily reach an appropriate decision by fully applying eBay without the benefit of a presumption of irreparable injury, or it may well decide that the particular circumstances of the instant case bear substantial parallels to previous cases such that a presumption of irreparable injury is an appropriate exercise of its discretion in light of the historical traditions."
This case is North American Medical Corporation, et al. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
4/7. Various entities filed amicus curiae briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) in In re Bernand Bilski and Rand Warsaw, an appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), regarding patentable subject matter.
4/4. Verizon Wireless announced in a release, and AT&T announced in a release, in vague terms, their plans for use of spectrum that they will acquire as a result of their winning bids in the recently closed Auction No. 73, the 700 MHz auction. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) anti-collusion rules prohibited such disclose until April 3, 2008.
VW stated that it will use this spectrum "to capture the full potential of its announced plan to deploy a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network and Open Development Initiative".
VW will acquire C Block spectrum for all states, except Alaska. This spectrum is subject to the FCC's open devices and applications requirements (ODAR). It also acquired 102 licenses in the A and B Blocks.
It added that it plans "to launch its LTE network in the 700 MHz spectrum in the 2010 timeframe". It added that "the breadth of the national C-block spectrum footprint, all in a single band and with a depth of 22 MHz, provides a speed and performance advantage that will be ideal for connecting a variety of consumer electronics, from wireless phones to medical devices to gaming consoles. In addition, the 102 individual licenses in the A and B-blocks provide additional growth capacity in key markets."
VW also stated that this will increase its "average spectrum depth per market to 82 MHz, from 52 MHz today."
AT&T announced that its "spectrum holdings position the company to further enhance the quality and reliability of existing wireless broadband and voice services that consumers are demanding, and set the foundation for more customer choices for new, more advanced wireless broadband technologies and services."
It acquired B Block spectrum in the 700 MHz auction.
It elaborated that "The complementary nature of the spectrum AT&T acquired through the FCC auction and from Aloha Partners gives AT&T the capacity to meet customer needs as the company moves to higher-speed 4G (fourth-generation) services. Upon final award of the auctioned B Block spectrum, AT&T's 700 MHz spectrum will cover 100 percent of the top 200 markets and 87 percent of the U.S. population".
It added that "With fewer costly and complex regulations, we have the certainty and flexibility needed to move faster in rolling out new mobile technology".
See also, story titled "FCC Releases Details of 700 MHz Auction" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,735, March 24, 2008, and story titled "FCC Closes 700 MHz Auction" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,734, March 20, 2008.
The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour debate, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. The House will consider numerous non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 7.
The Senate will meet at 10:00 AM. It will resume consideration of HR 3221 [LOC | WW], the "Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007".
8:00 AM. Eric Solomon (Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Department of the Treasury) will give a speech titled "Current Developments in Tax Policy" at the conference titled "Tax Executives Institute 58th Midyear Conference". Location: Grand Hyatt, 1000 H St., NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Luma v. Stryker, App. Ct. No. 2007-1353, a patent infringement case involving endoscopy medical devices -- Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 7.
9:30 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice & Science will hold a hearing on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Location: Room H-309, Capitol Building.
10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Financial Services will hold a hearing on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Location: Room 2220, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Tip Systems v. Phillips & Brooks, App. Ct. No. 2007-1241, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (SDTex) in a patent infringement case regarding cord free phones. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in EI DuPont v. Macdermid, App. Ct. No. 2007-1568, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DDel) in a patent infringement involving digitally imaged flexographic printing elements. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Johns Hopkins v. Datascope, App. Ct. No. 2007-1530, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DMd) in a patent infringement involving catheter systems. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Innovation Technologies v. Splash Medical, App. Ct. No. 2007-1424. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.
11:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice & Science will hold a hearing on the Department of Commerce's (DOC) International Trade Administration (ITA). Location: Room H-309, Capitol Building.
9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may hold an event titled "Open Commission Meeting". See, tentative agenda [4 pages in PDF]. See, story titled "FCC Releases Agenda for April 10 Meeting" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,741, April 2, 2008. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.
10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) will hold a hearing titled "Identity Theft: Who’s Got Your Number?". The witnesses will include Douglas Shulman (IRS Commissioner). See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's (OGC) Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs will hold a hearing titled "Investigation into the Sale of Sensitive, In-Demand Military Equipment and Supplies on the Internet". Location: Room 2154, Rayburn Building.
RESCHEDULED FOR APRIL 23. 10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Phantom Traffic". The SCC notice states that this hearing "will examine concerns regarding traffic over telephone networks that is sent without identifying information used for intercarrier billing purposes". Location Room 253, Russell Building.
10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Homeland Security will hold a hearing on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The hearing will be webcast by the HAC. Location: Room 2220, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Southwestern Bell v. Arthur Collins, App. Ct. No. 2007-1577. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
12:30 PM. Eric Solomon (Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Department of the Treasury) will give a speech titled "Current Developments in Tax Policy" at an ALI/ABA event. Location: Hilton Embassy Row, 2015 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Practice Committee will host a program titled "Wireless Technologies: An Overview and Policy Discussion on What's Current and What’s Next". This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. Prices vary. The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 5:00 PM on April 8. See, registration form [PDF] and notice and online registration page. Location: Wiley Rein, 1776 K St., NW.
Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 7 states that "no votes are expected in the House".
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Solomon Technologies v. ITC, App. Ct. No. 2007-1391, an appeal from the ITC's termination of an investigation regarding Solomon Technologies' complaint that Toyota infringed a patent regarding an electric wheel. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization v. Buffalo Technologies, App. Ct. No. 2007-1449, a patent infringement case involving wireless communications technology. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
Day three of a three day conference hosted by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Intellectual Property Law titled "23rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference". See, conference web site and brochure [PDF]. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel, Arlington, VA.
Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the Petition for Declaratory Ruling [33 pages in PDF] filed by the Public Knowledge (PK) and other groups on December 11, 2007, pertaining to the regulatory status of text messaging services, including short code based services sent from and received by mobile phones. The PK requests that the FCC declare that these services are governed by the anti-discrimination provisions of Title II of the Communications Act. See, story titled "Verizon Wireless and Net Neutrality Advocates Clash Over Text Messaging" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,647, September 27, 2007. See also, letter from Verizon Wireless to NARAL dated September 27, 2007, and NARAL's web page titled "NARAL Pro-Choice America Wins Fight over Corporate Censorship". See also, story titled "Public Knowledge Asks FCC to Declare that Blocking and Refusing to Carry Text Messages Violates Title II" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,686, December 11, 2007. This proceeding is WT Docket No. 08-7. See, original notice in the Federal Register, January 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 18, at Pages 4866-4867. See also, notice [PDF] of extension (DA 08-282), and second notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 40, at Pages 10775-10776.
EXTENDED TO JUNE 11. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The FCC adopted this item on December 18, 2007, and released the text on January 24, 2008. It is FCC 07-218 in MB Docket No. 04-233. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 13, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 30, at Pages 8255-8259. See also, FCC's Public Notice [PDF] (DA 08-393). See also, Public Notice [PDF] (DA 08-515) extending deadlines.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding leased commercial access. The FCC adopted this NPRM on November 27, 2007, and released the text on February 1, 2008. This NPRM is FCC 07-208 in MB Docket No. 07-42. See, story titled "FCC Adopts R&O and FNPRM Regarding Commercial Leased Access" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,680, November 30, 2007. See also, notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 40, Pages 10732-10738.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding cable and broadcast attribution rules. The FCC adopted this item on December 18, 2007, and released the text on February 11, 2008. It is FCC 07-219 in MM Docket No. 92-264. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 27, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 39, at Pages 10411-10415.
9:30 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission -- the 700 MHz Auction". This hearing will be webcast by the HCC. See also, story titled "Rep. Markey Announces Hearing on 700 MHz Auction" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,734, March 20, 2008. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1114
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.