Start-ups use “shaming” to fight trademark infringement claims
Phil Michaelson found himself embroiled in a modern-day David and Goliath story last year when his web cookbook, KeepRecipes.com, came under fire for trademark infringement, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
February 23, 2012 at 07:53 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Phil Michaelson found himself embroiled in a modern-day David and Goliath story last year when his web cookbook, KeepRecipes.com, came under fire for trademark infringement, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. The complaint centered on his website's use of a “keep” button that allowed users to save recipes. A New York-based site called AdKeeper, which allows users to “keep” ads by clicking a button, thought that Michaelson's website constituted trademark infringement, and sent him a cease-and-desist letter.
Unable to afford a costly legal battle, but unwilling to alter his website, Michaelson posted the letter on Chillingeffects.org. The web site, a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and seven university law schools, aims to protect online activity from overreaching intellectual property claims. A group of lawyers eventually offered to represent Michaelson at no cost after seeing his letter, but no claim was ever filed.
Michaelson's case illustrates a new strategy being used by start-ups who find themselves the subject of trademark disputes. Known as “shaming” by some lawyers, the tactic gives leverage to small companies who are financially outmatched by their competitors.
Despite Michaelson's success, some experts warn that the strategy can backfire if it draws attention to a legitimate infringement claim. Others are skeptical that social media movements will deter most big companies from seeking to protect their trademarks.
For its part, Chillingeffects also has expanded into the social media realm. In an unusual move, Twitter posted more than 4,400 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notifications dating back to Nov. 2010 to the site. The decision to release the notices came almost simultaneously with Twitter's announcement that it would be censoring Tweets on a country-by-country basis.
Read more at the Wall Street Journal.
Phil Michaelson found himself embroiled in a modern-day David and Goliath story last year when his web cookbook, KeepRecipes.com, came under fire for trademark infringement, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. The complaint centered on his website's use of a “keep” button that allowed users to save recipes. A New York-based site called AdKeeper, which allows users to “keep” ads by clicking a button, thought that Michaelson's website constituted trademark infringement, and sent him a cease-and-desist letter.
Unable to afford a costly legal battle, but unwilling to alter his website, Michaelson posted the letter on Chillingeffects.org. The web site, a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and seven university law schools, aims to protect online activity from overreaching intellectual property claims. A group of lawyers eventually offered to represent Michaelson at no cost after seeing his letter, but no claim was ever filed.
Michaelson's case illustrates a new strategy being used by start-ups who find themselves the subject of trademark disputes. Known as “shaming” by some lawyers, the tactic gives leverage to small companies who are financially outmatched by their competitors.
Despite Michaelson's success, some experts warn that the strategy can backfire if it draws attention to a legitimate infringement claim. Others are skeptical that social media movements will deter most big companies from seeking to protect their trademarks.
For its part, Chillingeffects also has expanded into the social media realm. In an unusual move, Twitter posted more than 4,400 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notifications dating back to Nov. 2010 to the site. The decision to release the notices came almost simultaneously with Twitter's announcement that it would be censoring Tweets on a country-by-country basis.
Read more at the Wall Street Journal.
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 AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
How Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
6 minute readRepublican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
4 minute readFTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Hagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
- 2What to Know About Naming a Law Firm
- 3Texas Shows the Way Forward in Resolving Mass Tort Gridlock
- 4Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)
- 5Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
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