Personal injury law firm beats Lerner & Rowe's appeal in Google ad case
By Diana Novak Jones
Oct 22 (Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Tuesday sided with an Arizona personal injury law firm sued by rival Lerner & Rowe, which had claimed trademark infringement involving the purchase of Google ads.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling that granted a bid by the Arizona firm, the Accident Law Group, for summary judgment in the trademark infringement lawsuit brought by Lerner & Rowe over ALG’s ads that appeared on Lerner & Rowe’s Google search results. Lerner & Rowe had accused ALG of attaching ads for its firm to search terms or "keywords" associated with Lerner & Rowe and siphoning off potential clients.
The appeals court said that despite Lerner & Rowe's "strong" trademark and its expenditure of more than $100 million on marketing in Arizona, data from Google and ALG showed that only a tiny fraction of people who called ALG about potential legal representation mentioned Lerner & Rowe and therefore may have been confused.
ALG, also known as Brown, Engstrand & Shely, has purchased Google Ad keywords on Lerner & Rowe’s Google search results since the firm’s founding in 2015, according to the opinion.
Lerner & Rowe, which has offices all over Arizona and in several other states around the country, sued ALG in Arizona federal court in 2021, alleging federal and state trademark infringement and unjust enrichment.
In 2023, U.S. District Judge David Campbell granted ALG’s bid for summary judgment, in part relying on data from ALG’s intake department, which said it received a little more than 200 phone calls from people who specifically mentioned “Lerner & Rowe.” In contrast, ALG’s ads appeared on “Lerner & Rowe” searches more than 109,000 times between 2017 and 2021, Campbell said.
The appeals court on Tuesday said that the district court was correct to conclude that the case was "one of the rare trademark infringement cases susceptible to summary judgment.
Maria Speth of Jaburg Wilk, one of the attorneys defending ALG, said in a statement that the appellate court “correctly vindicated Accident Law Group’s right to engage in key word advertising.”
Attorneys for Lerner & Rowe did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
U.S. Circuit Judge Roopali Desai concurred with the appeals court's unanimous decision but wrote a separate opinion urging the full 9th Circuit to consider whether bidding and purchasing on ad keywords constitute "use in commerce" under federal law, a necessary element to prove trademark confusion.
Reporting by Diana Jones
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
