Manipulative Metatagging, Search Engine Baiting, and Initial Interest Confusion

Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2000, Pages

  Posner, Rachel Jane ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0043227326     PISSN: 00101923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (3)

1. The author models this hypothetical after that which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit proposed in Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1064 (9th Cir. 1999). The Brookfield court based its hypothetical on the facts of Blockbuster Entertainment v. Laylco, 869 F. Supp. 505 (E.D. Mich. 1994), a case in which Blockbuster Entertainment Group ("Blockbuster") sought to enjoin other video rental stores from using the name "Video Busters." See id. at 508. The court ruled that the name "Video Busters" creates pre-sale confusion due to its similarity to Blockbuster's registered service marks of "Blockbuster" and "Blockbuster Video." See id. at 507, 513. Because the court found "that Blockbuster has demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, that an injunction will not significantly harm Video Busters, and that the public interest favors the grant of an injunction," it enjoined the defendants from using the "Video Busters" mark or any confusingly similar designations thereof. Id. at 516.
2. The author models this hypothetical after that which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit proposed in Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1064 (9th Cir. 1999). The Brookfield court based its hypothetical on the facts of Blockbuster Entertainment v. Laylco, 869 F. Supp. 505 (E.D. Mich. 1994), a case in which Blockbuster Entertainment Group ("Blockbuster") sought to enjoin other video rental stores from using the name "Video Busters." See id. at 508. The court ruled that the name "Video Busters" creates pre-sale confusion due to its similarity to Blockbuster's registered service marks of "Blockbuster" and "Blockbuster Video." See id. at 507, 513. Because the court found "that Blockbuster has demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, that an injunction will not significantly harm Video Busters, and that the public interest favors the grant of an injunction," it enjoined the defendants from using the "Video Busters" mark or any confusingly similar designations thereof. Id. at 516.
3. The author models this hypothetical after that which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit proposed in Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1064 (9th Cir. 1999). The Brookfield court based its hypothetical on the facts of Blockbuster Entertainment v. Laylco, 869 F. Supp. 505 (E.D. Mich. 1994), a case in which Blockbuster Entertainment Group ("Blockbuster") sought to enjoin other video rental stores from using the name "Video Busters." See id. at 508. The court ruled that the name "Video Busters" creates pre-sale confusion due to its similarity to Blockbuster's registered service marks of "Blockbuster" and "Blockbuster Video." See id. at 507, 513. Because the court found "that Blockbuster has demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, that an injunction will not significantly harm Video Busters, and that the public interest favors the grant of an injunction," it enjoined the defendants from using the "Video Busters" mark or any confusingly similar designations thereof. Id. at 516.