<p> Michael Douglas October 13, 2006 Trademark and Unfair Competition Seminar</p><p>PAPER OUTLINE: THE FUTILITY OF TRADEMARK ADWORD LITIGATION</p><p>I. Introduction II. Search Engines as Secondary Infringers  800-JR-Cigar  GEICO v. Google (2004)  American Blind III. Search Term Sales Fail to Satisfy Trademark “Use”  Rescuecom  1-800-Contacts  Merck  Edina Realty  GEICO v. Google (2005) IV. Economic Perspective: Balance of Economic Harms and Litigation Costs a. The Illusory Harm of “Initial Interest Confusion”  Brookfield  Checkpoint  Australian Gold  O'Rourke, Defining the Limits of FreeRiding in Cyberspace b. Actual Losses in Perspective V. Benefits of AdWord buys to Society: Search Costs analysis  Dogan & Lemley, Trademarks And Consumer Search Costs On The Internet VI. Conclusion</p><p>POTENTIAL SOURCES (WORKING BIBLIOGRAPHY)  1-800-Contacts v. WhenU.com, 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2006).  800-JR-Cigar v. GoTo.com, 2006 WL 1971659 (D.N.J. July 13, 2006).  Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield, 436 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2006).  Brookfield Comm. v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).  Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. Check Point Software Tech, Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 292 (3d Cir. 2001).  Edina Realty, Inc. v. TheMLSOnline.com, 2006 WL 737064 (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2006).  GEICO v. Google, 2005 WL 1903128 (E.D.Va. 2005).  GEICO v. Google, 330 F.Supp.2d 700 (E.D.Va. 2004).  Google v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, 2005 WL 832398 (N.D. Cal. 2005).  Merck & Co., Inc. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 402 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2006).  Rescuecom v. Google, 5:04-CV-1055 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2006).  Stacey L. Dogan & Mark A. Lemley, Trademarks And Consumer Search Costs On The Internet, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 777 (2004).  Maureen O'Rourke, Defining the Limits of FreeRiding in Cyberspace: Trademark Liability for Metatagging, 33 Gonz. L. Rev. 277 (1997-98).</p>