Fla. Firm's Lawsuit Accuses Atlanta Boutique of Misleading Google Tactics
The Atlanta firm accused of using GoogleAds to misdirect the plaintiffs' potential clients said the claims are baseless and has vowed to fight them.
December 03, 2019 at 02:20 PM
6 minute read
Florida-based multistate personal injury law firm Kanner & Pintaluga is crying foul over what it claims are unfair advertising practices by an Atlanta firm, which is allegedly steering away potential clients.
According to the complaint K&P filed last month in Fulton County Superior Court, Atlanta's Kaufman Law is violating K&P's trademark and "misleading" the public by purchasing K&P's name through Google's AdWords. That program allows businesses to bid for particular search words or terms, then place clickable links atop the resulting search pages "in a manner that makes Kaufman's advertisements appear as related to or derived from K&P."
A screenshot attached to the complaint shows a search page for K&P with a link at the top to Kaufman's website with the word "Ad," followed by the message, "Atlanta Accident Attorney—Kaufman Law—Personal Injury—Car accident? Schedule your free consultation today—no upfront costs!"
Directly beneath is a link the K&P webpage and the message "Law firm in Atlanta, Georgia" and the familiar Google links to office hours, the firm's webpage and reviews.
The complaint asserts that "Kaufman's Adwords scheme causes confusion and mistake among consumers as to the source or origin of Kaufman's advertisements, particularly among consumers utilizing mobile devices who are unable to distinguish between organic search results and paid advertisements, and misleads such consumers into believing they are being directed to the K&P website, when in fact, they are being directed to Kaufman's website."
Google is not a defendant in the complaint.
When the Daily Report entered K&P's name into the Google search engine, four entries marked "Ad" appeared with links to websites offering legal services, but they did not contain any particular attorney or firm names.
Below them was a link to K&P's site.
Also attached to the lawsuit is a copy of an Aug. 15 cease-and-desist letter demanding that Kaufman stop using K&P's name or any similar variation, stop buying its name and marks through AdWords or any other keyword marketing service and use "negative keywords" so that its name does not pop up in any online search for K&P.
As recently as Nov. 5, the complaint said, Kaufman's ads continued to appear at the top of the page when K&P was entered as the search term.
According to its website, K&P employs more than 40 lawyers in offices in eight states specializing in personal injury cases.
The complaint was filed by Shane O'Neill with Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial in Atlanta, and Aaron Davis and Daniel B. Allison with Davis Goldman in Miami.
O'Neill said he is not at liberty to discuss the case.
Kaufman is a six-lawyer boutique that also specializes in personal injury cases.
Founding partner Jeffrey Kaufman said he "has not purchased Kanner & Pintaluga's name for any purpose and certainly not as an ad word. Their false claim is reckless and damaging to Kaufman Law."
Kaufman said he nonetheless complied with the cease-and-desist letter's demands, "but they sued us anyway."
The firm has retained Freeman, Mathis & Gary partner Robert Buckley to fight the suit.
"Freeman Mathis & Gary was only recently retained and we're still gathering information," Buckley said.
"Our client intends to vigorously defend itself against these untrue allegations," he said.
The complaint asserts claims for "unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive practice that infringes upon K&P's common law service marks," trade name infringement and violation of Georgia's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
It includes a request for an injunction "preventing Kaufman from using the K&P name as part of its AdWords scheme, alone or in combination with any other letters, words, letter strings, phrases, or designs in commerce" related to its business.
The complaint's assertions are similar to those leveled against a Texas legal advertising company in 2017 by several firms accusing it of hijacking their names in online searches and re-routing queries to its customers.
That litigation resulted in at least three courts across the county issuing injunctions barring Exclusive Legal Marketing from using Google's ad services to misappropriate law firm names.
Another case, filed by Florida personal injury powerhouse Morgan & Morgan, ended with a confidential settlement last year.
Damien Prosser, an M&M partner in Orlando who led that litigation, reviewed the K&P complaint and said its allegations are very similar to other cases his firm initiated after a competitor used GoogleAds in an effort to siphon away business online.
Often, an employee or outside ad agency is running a firm's advertising, Prosser said.
"The first thing they'll say is, 'We didn't know, it's our ad people,'" Prosser said.
"Usually, a cease-and-desist letter is enough to get the firms to stop and to do a negative keyword so their ad will not show up when someone enters your name," he said.
That ends most cases, but a few have proceeded to litigation.
"We've had one or two very large settlements," he said.
Prosser said that, particularly in a field like legal services, there is a danger that an unsophisticated client who needs a qualified attorney to handle a complex or high-exposure case may be diverted to one more likely to push for a quick settlement.
Mark VanderBroek, a partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough in Atlanta, represented personal injury firm Montlick & Associates in one of the suits against ELM.
After looking at the K&P complaint, VanderBroek said it was similar to the claims in the Montlick case, although that case included claims of additional wrongdoing.
"The entities we were dealing with on behalf of Montlick were doing other questionable things," he said, including not identifying the encroaching firms in the search results or when an unwary caller phoned a number by mistake.
"From the complaint, it looks like the Kaufman firm does have its name identified as part of the search engine content," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOn the Move: Hunton Andrews Kurth Practice Leader Named Charlotte Managing Partner
6 minute readHusch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250