Plaintiff Daniel Jurin sued Google alleging violations of state and federal law in connection with the inclusion of Jurin's trademark "Styrotrim" as a suggested keyword in Google's AdWords program. Consistent with other such lawsuits against Google, Jurin claimed that Google's use of Jurin's trademark "Styrotrim" as a suggested keyword that competitors could bid on as part of the AdWords program misappropriated Jurin's trademark and facilitated Jurin's competitors in infringing on his trademark.
Google moved to dismiss Jurin's claims for violations of the Lanham Act and for Negligent Interference with Contractual Relations and Prospective Economic Advantage, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations and Prospective Economic Advantage, Fraud and Unjust Enrichment. The District Court agreed with Google as to each of the claims and dismissed them with leave to amend.
With respect to Jurin's Lanham Act claims, the District Court rejected the false designation of origin claim finding that Google "in no way directly represented that it is the producer of the Styrotrim product," a necessary showing for such a claim under Dastar. The District Court also went on to comment on any claim that Google facilitated confusion by use of Jurin's trademark as a suggested keyword:
To the extent Plaintiff may contend that Defendant has helped "facilitate" confusion of the product with others, such is a highly attenuated argument. Even if one accept[s] as true the allegation that a "Sponsored link" might confuse a consumer, it is hardly likely that with several different sponsored links appearing on a page that a consumer might believe each one is the true "producer" or "origin" of the Styrotrim product. As such, Plaintiff fails to properly plead a false designation of origin claim.
And the District Court readily disposed of Jurin's Lanham Act false advertising claim because Jurin could not show that he and Google were direct competitors in the building materials market.
As to the other claims raised in Google's motion to dismiss, the District Court found that Google was a protected interactive computer service and was therefore immunized from liability under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230:
Defendant does not provide the content of the "Sponsored Link" advertisements. It provides a space and a service and thereafter charges for its service. By suggesting keywords to competing advertisers Defendant merely helps third parties to refine their content. This is tantamount to the editorial process protected by the CDA. Defendant's keyword suggestion tool hardly amounts to the participation necessary to disqualify it of CDA immunity. Rather it is a "neutral tool," that does nothing more than provide options that advertisers could adopt or reject at their discretion, thus entitling the operator to immunity.
Google also successfully moved for an order requiring Jurin to pay $6,030.52 in costs in connection with a previously-filed "almost identical" complaint that was filed in June 2009 and voluntarily dismissed in July 2009.
The District Court's Memorandum and Order in Jurin v. Google Inc., No. 2:09-cv-03065-MCE-KJM (E.D. Cal. March 1, 2010) can be found here (PDF, 13 pgs).
