Yet Another Ruling That Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Louisiana Pacific v. James Hardie (Forbes Cross-Post)
4 02 2013By Eric Goldman
Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. James Hardie Building Products, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162980 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2012). The initial complaint. The amended complaint filed after this ruling.
It’s been surreal watching plaintiff-side trademark lawyers lament that the Rosetta Stone v. Google settlement means we won’t get clearer legal precedent from the case. See, e.g., this paywalled BNA article, Attorneys Lament Lost Chance for Clarity On Lawfulness of Marks’ Sale as Keywords. Those lawyers and I are living in parallel universes. The Rosetta Stone case’s unenlightening denouement simply supplemented the overwhelming evidence that most keyword advertising lawsuits are stupid–and that fact hasn’t changed one bit in the past decade. Plaintiffs’ lawyers might enjoy chowing down on the litigation gravy train, but clients might as well flush wads of cash down the toilet.
The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/11/competitive_key_1.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
