Suit Over Law Firm's Online Marketing Practices Dropped
A suit accusing a New Jersey law firm of using Google's marketing services to hijack a competitor's clients has been dismissed after the defendant firm agreed not to engage in such tactics.
August 28, 2018 at 02:40 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New Jersey Law Journal
A suit accusing a Cherry Hill-based law firm of using Google's marketing services to hijack a competitor's clients has been dismissed after the defendant firm agreed not to engage in such tactics.
Hark & Hark, which also has offices in Philadelphia and King of Prussia, was named in a trademark infringement suit filed in June by fellow South Jersey firm Helmer, Conley & Kasselman, which claimed the Hark firm used Google's sponsored search feature to lure prospective clients who were seeking information about Helmer Conley.
Helmer Conley voluntarily dismissed the suit Aug. 22, after U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman of the District of New Jersey permanently enjoined Hark & Hark from engaging in the online activities that were the basis of the suit.
Those alleged activities included purchasing or bidding on keywords from search engine operators that are identical or similar to Helmer Conley's name, and making use of Helmer Conley's name in any way in connection with its advertising if it is in a manner likely to confuse actual or potential clients.
Hark & Hark also agreed in the consent decree to provide a sworn declaration that it has canceled any and all contracts with search engine operators for keywords that are identical or substantially similar to Helmer Conley's name.
In addition, Hark & Hark agreed to pay Helmer Conley's legal fees and costs in connection with the case, according to the latter firm's counsel in the case, Benjamin Folkman of Folkman Law Offices in Cherry Hill.
“My client was not trying to get anything out of this, other than to get them to stop what they were doing, and they're satisfied,” Folkman said.
Steven Angstreich of Weir & Partners in Cherry Hill, who represented Hark & Hark, did not return a call about the dismissal of the case.
The suit accused Hark & Hark of contracting with Google's AdWords online advertising service to draw traffic to its website from those conducting a Google search related to Helmer Conley, based in Haddon Heights. The suit brought claims under the Lanham Act for false advertising, and under New Jersey's unfair competition and identity theft statutes, as well as common-law claims for unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, commercial appropriation of name or likeness, unjust enrichment, and negligent enablement of imposter fraud.
The suit claimed people conducting Google searches on terms such as “Helmer law office” or “Helmer lawyer” yielded search results with the heading “Helmer Conley Kasselman, Aggressive Criminal Defense,” but the search results themselves listed the New Jersey street address and telephone number of Hark & Hark. Clicking on such a result brought up the Hark & Hark website, Helmer Conley alleged.
Folkman filed the suit on behalf of Helmer Conley and principals Yaron Helmer and James Conley. Helmer Conley's website lists three partners, four associates and 42 lawyers who are of counsel. Besides Hark & Hark, firm principals Jeffrey Hark and Richard Hark were named as defendants in the suit.
Google generates the “sponsored links” section of its search results screens by charging fees to parties who want their websites to be associated with certain search terms. For example, a matrimonial attorney might pay to have his or her firm name appear at the top of a list of results generated when someone conducts a search on a term such as “divorce lawyer.” Then, each time an internet user clicks on a particular sponsored link, the sponsor of that link is charged a fee by Google.
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 All'The World Didn't End This Morning': Phila. Firm Leaders Respond to Election Results
4 minute readSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 2Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 3These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 4'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 5Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
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