Search for: "Lens.com"
Results 1 - 20
of 63
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2023, 7:46 am
Lens.com opinion, which held that a 1.5% clickthrough rate proved that there was NOT legally sufficient initial interest confusion because it was well below the standard 10-15% net confusion threshold courts normally require. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 11:44 am
The Board noted that implicit in the Lens.com test is considering consumer perception as well as the consumer’s experience or interaction with the product. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 11:44 am
The Board noted that implicit in the Lens.com test is considering consumer perception as well as the consumer’s experience or interaction with the product. [read post]
4 Apr 2023, 3:42 am
"Whether a non-syndicated column that is, for example, “printed, downloadable, or recorded on electronic media,” TMEP Section 1202.07(a), is a good in trade should be analyzed using the same standard we use to assess goods in trade issues in other contexts.The Board therefore adopted a new test, based on Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, 103 USPQ2d 1672, 1676 (Fed. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 11:28 am
Lens.com (10th Cir. 2013). [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 1:15 pm
Lens.com, Inc., 2022 WL 1665453, No. 1:18-cv-00407-NG-RLM (E.D.N.Y. [read post]
14 Jun 2021, 10:31 am
(Lens.com claimed it incurred at least $1.4M of defense costs). [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 2:30 pm
Jeanne Fromer & Barton Beebe, NYU School of Law The Future of Trademark Depletion in a Global, Multilingual Economy: Evidence and Lessons from the European Union TMs transcend boundaries b/c brands transcend boundaries; even small businesses are often looking beyond borders to other countries. [read post]
4 Sep 2020, 10:21 am
Lens.com, Infogroup v. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 6:48 am
Only Lens.com fought back and largely prevailed in the suit. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 10:00 pm
Lens.com, Inc.,722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013), LENS.com showed in court over 1,000 initial interest confusion events after 1–800–Contacts bought Google AdWords with the Lens.com trademarks. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 10:20 am
Starting in 2002 and continuing for about a decade, 1-800 Contacts systematically locked up many of its online contact lenses retail competitors into settlement agreements that prohibited the parties from bidding on each other’s trademarks at the search engines. [read post]
19 Aug 2018, 9:15 am
The 10th Circuit’s Lens.com ruling governs this case. [read post]
1 May 2018, 10:24 am
Lens.com, General Steel v. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 7:38 am
Lens.com, Inc., 722 F.3d 1229, 1245-49 (10th Cir. 2013).) 1-800 Contacts’ bidding agreements, comprising nearly 80 percent of the online retail market for lenses, reached far beyond the brand’s property rights, restraining trade and harming consumers. [read post]
16 Aug 2017, 8:54 am
As I explained in this expert report, and as the Lens.com case expressly held, an organic search result cannot constitute “diversion,” period. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 1:13 pm
The Lens.com Litigation Was a Big Loss for 1-800 Contacts. [read post]
10 Aug 2016, 10:40 am
After all, Lens.com filed its antitrust lawsuit in 2011. [read post]
29 Jun 2016, 6:54 am
Lens.com, Inc., 722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013). * Nespresso USA, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 1:19 pm
Through the course of the litigation, we learn the following facts: 1-800 Contacts accrued $650k in legal fees pursuing the case and capped its legal fees at $1.1M before it stiffed its law firm. the defendant Lens.com made less than $21 in profits from its competitive keyword ad buys. 1-800 Contacts also tried to attribute to Lens.com keyword ad buys made by Lens.com’s affiliates, a legal argument the court ultimately rejected. 1-800 Contacts had done the same thing… [read post]
