1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.Com, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the similarity of the [consumer’s] search term and [the plaintiff’s] mark is of minor relevance”
• holding that there was no likelihood of “initial interest confusion” because an expert report showed that customers clicked on the defendant’s advertisement only 1.5% of the time that an advertisement was generated by an infringing keyword search term
• stating that an element of a Lanham Act infringement claim is “that the defendant has used an identical or similar mark in commerce.” (emphasis added)
• explaining that Inwood establishes liability for a defendant who “enables a third party” to violate the Lanham Act
• explaining that Inwood establishes liability for a defendant who “enables a third party” to violate the Lanham Act
• stressing that for the unclean hands defense to apply the plaintiff’s misconduct towards the defendant must be “in relation to the trademark.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).