<p>Lisa McAndrews Trademark Seminar October 13, 2006 TM Paper Outline Introduction - Definitions o Search Engines o Metatags and Keywords o Sponsored Links - Background o Use and Utility of Search Engines o Result Generation Techniques within Search Engines o Advertising within Search Engines  Banner Ads  Sponsored Links  Distinguishing Factors between banner ads and sponsored links  Revenue generated for Search Engine  Cost of placement/Competition for Space o Metatags  Early Use  Current Use  Infringing Uses  Non-Infringing Uses o Keywords  Placement – Overt v. Discrete  Reverse Lookup Techniques  Privacy of Placement? Analysis - Traditional Approach to Trademark Doctrine within Cyberspace o Initial Interest Confusion - Current State of the Law o Discussion of recent sponsored link decisions o Distinguishing Elements from prior decisions - Burden of Infringement Policing o On Trademark Owners? o On Search Engines? - Lack of real world analogous situations. Discussion - Developing trends in cyberspace trademark infringement - Free riding in bad faith on the goodwill of others - Developing Sophistication and Discernment amongst internet searchers - Potential future approaches to adapt to the developing trends Conclusion - Final comparison of traditional and evolving trademark doctrine to the use of search engine paid metatag and keyword placement. Bibliography</p><p>Brookfield Comm. v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) Playboy v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002) Maureen O’Rourke, Defining the Limits of FreeRiding in Cyberspace: Trademark Liability for Metatagging, 33 Gonz. L. Rev. 277 (1997-98) Playboy v. Netscape, 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004) 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)</p><p>Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2006 I. Intellectual Property WHENU.COM, INC. & GOOGLE INC.: PARSING TRADEMARK’S USE REQUIREMENT Alicia Gámez. 21 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 403</p><p>Yale Journal Of Law And Technology 2006 REGULATING SEARCH ENGINES: TAKING STOCK AND LOOKING AHEAD Urs Gasser 8 Yale J. L. & Tech. 201</p><p>Los Angeles Lawyer November, 2005 Feature SEARCH TERMS The Use Of Trademarked Terms By Web Search Pages Has Challenged Traditional Boundaries Of Trademark Protection Steven D. Atlee, Brian F. Mcmahon 28-NOV L.A. Law. 38 Cardozo Law Review October 2005 Article INITIAL INTEREST CONFUSION: STANDING AT THE CROSSROADS OF TRADEMARK LAW Jennifer E. Rothman 27 Cardozo L. Rev. 105 The Trademark Reporter September-October, 2005 Article And Report REVISITING INITIAL INTEREST CONFUSION ON THE INTERNET Daniel C. Glazer, Dev R. Dham. 95 Trademark Rep. 952 183 A.L.R. Fed. 553 Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine Under Lanham Trademark Act Deborah F. Buckman, J.D. MAKING A MARK IN THE INTERNET ECONOMY: A TRADEMARK ANALYSIS OF SEARCH ENGINE ADVERTISING , Mark Bartholomew. Summer, 2005, 58 Okla. L. Rev. 179, TRADEMARK IN TRANSITION: INSTITUTE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & INFORMATION LAW SYMPOSIUM: TRADEMARKS AND CONSUMER SEARCH COSTS ON THE INTERNET, Stacey L. Dogan, & Mark A. Lemley 2004, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 777 USE, LIABILITY, AND THE STRUCTURE OF TRADEMARK LAW, Uli Widmaier Winter, 2004, 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 603, 800-JR Cigar, Inc. V. Goto.Com, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 2d 273 Gov’t Emples. Ins. Co. V. Google, Inc., 1:04CV507 (LMB/TCB) , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION , 330 F. Supp. 2d 700 Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 30, 2005) Edina Realty, Inc. v. Themlsonline.com, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13775 (D. Minn., Mar. 20, 2006) Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254 (2 nd Cir. 1987) SecuraComm. Consulting, Inc. v. SecuraCom Inc., 984 F. Supp. 286 (D.N.J. 1997, rev’d on other grounds, 166 F.3d 182 (3 rd Cir. 1999), appeal after remand, 224 F.3d 273 (3 rd Cir. 2000); Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188, 204 (5 th Cir. 1998) Forum Corp. of N. Am. v. Forum, Ltd., 903 F.2d 434, 442, n.2 (7 th Cir. 1990) Australian Gold v. Haeld, 436 F.3d 1228, 1238-39 (10 th Cir. 2006) HRL Associates, Inc. v. Weiss Associates, Inc., 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1819 (TTAB 1989), aff’d on other grounds, 902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990) </p>