Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitappealtrademark
appealtrademark

Related Cases

Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. VanDam, Inc., 159 F.3d 739, 48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1503
View Case »
Playmakers LLC v. ESPN, Inc., 376 F.3d 894, 71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1759, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6301, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8642
View Case »
Rolex Watch, U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1939, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4236, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5359
View Case »
Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423, 79 Fed.R.Serv.3d 630, 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1441
View Case »
Rolex Watch, U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1939, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4236, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5359
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1287

Facts

Rescuecom Corp., a computer services franchising company, filed a lawsuit against Google Inc., alleging that Google's practice of allowing advertisers to purchase keywords, including Rescuecom's trademark, constituted trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and dilution under the Lanham Act. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the action, believing that Rescuecom failed to allege that Google's use of its mark was a 'use in commerce' as defined by the Lanham Act. Rescuecom appealed the dismissal, arguing that its complaint adequately alleged a claim.

Rescuecom is a national computer service franchising company that offers on-site computer services and sales. Rescuecom conducts a substantial amount of business over the Internet and receives between 17,000 to 30,000 visitors to its website each month. Since 1998, 'Rescuecom' has been a registered federal trademark, and there is no dispute as to its validity.

Issue

Did the district court err in dismissing Rescuecom's claims against Google for failure to state a claim under the Lanham Act?

Did the district court err in dismissing Rescuecom's claims against Google for failure to state a claim under the Lanham Act?

Rule

Analysis

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that Rescuecom's complaint adequately alleged a use in commerce of its trademark by Google.

The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this appeal is Rescuecom Corp. The Court of Appeals found that the district court had erred in its interpretation of the law regarding 'use in commerce' under the Lanham Act. The appellate court determined that Rescuecom's allegations were sufficient to establish a claim against Google, thereby allowing the case to proceed rather than being dismissed outright.

The prevailing party in this appeal is Rescuecom Corp. The Court of Appeals found that the district court had erred in its interpretation of the law regarding 'use in commerce' under the Lanham Act.

You must be