In this issue: Ascentive, LLC v. Opinion Corp., 2011 WL 6181452 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2011); L.F.P. IP, Inc. v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., 2011 WL 5024356 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 20, 2011); Marketquest Group, Inc. v. BIC Corp., 2011 WL 5360899 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011); Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Jiang, No. 11-cv- 24049 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2011); Weather Underground, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Sys., Inc., 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1778 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2011); Benedict v. Super Bakery, Inc., 101 U.S.Q.P.2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2011); Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC, Opp. No. 91195552, Canc. No. 92053001 (TTAB Nov. 16, 2011); Ascentive, LLC v. Opinion Corp., 2011 WL 6181452 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2011); and L.F.P. IP, Inc. v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., 2011 WL 5024356 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 20, 2011).
Excerpt from 'Ascentive. LLC...':
Plaintiffs’ goods and services were the subject of negative reviews from third parties on defendant’s consumer-review website, “PissedConsumer.com.” Plaintiffs alleged that defendant’s use of plaintiffs’ trademarks in subdomains, metatags, and advertising on the “PissedConsumer.com” site violated the Lanham Act and various state laws. The Eastern District of New York denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that defendant did not use plaintiffs’ marks as source identifiers and that defendant’s actions did not cause a likelihood of confusion, including initial-interest confusion. It also held that defendant qualified for immunity as a service provider under the Communications Decency Act against the state law claims.
Please see full publication below for more information.