1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.Com, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14368
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Lanham Act governs service-mark infringement and was applied to Internet advertising via keywords and AdWords.
- 1-800 Contacts owned 1800CONTACTS and sued Lens.com for trademark/service-mark infringement.
- Lens.com bid on keywords resembling 1-800’s mark; the ads could appear when users searched related terms.
- Affiliates of Lens.com also purchased keywords and some ads used 1-800’s mark in text.
- District Court granted Lens.com summary judgment on direct and most secondary-liability claims; sanctions related to discovery were upheld.
- Court affirmed most rulings but reversed and remanded for contributory-infringement analysis; addressed unclean-hands and attorney-fee issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct infringement likelihood of confusion | 1-800 alleges initial-interest confusion from keyword use | Lens.com asserts no confusion since ads differ in text and users see ads labeled as ads | No genuine issue; likelihood of confusion unlikely; summary judgment affirmed as to direct infringement |
| Vicarious liability for affiliates | Lens.com liable for affiliates’ infringing ads | No agency relationship or authority established | Affirmed summary judgment on vicarious infringement (no agency or authority shown) |
| Contributory infringement by Lens.com | Lens.com knew or should have known affiliates used 1-800’s mark and failed to stop it | No knowledge or reasonable steps to stop infringing ads | Reversed and remanded for contributory infringement determination (knowledge/response issue genuine) |
| Unclean hands defense | 1-800’s conduct not related to Lens.com’s infringement defense | 1-800’s keyword bidding on others’ marks supports defense | Unclean-hands defense rejected; not material to infringement claims |
Key Cases Cited
- King of the Mountain Sports, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1999) (six-factor test for likelihood of confusion; factors not exhaustive)
- Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield, 436 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2006) (initial-interest confusion defined; labeling/advertising context matters)
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982) (contributory infringement framework; knowledge/intent to infringe)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 317 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2003) (agency-based vicarious liability for trademark infringement)
- Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (contributory infringement when service provides means to infringers; notice/remedial steps)
- Rosetta Stone, Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012) (advertising keywords and platform responsibility; gatekeeping and knowledge standards)