FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1550489100> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1550489100 startingPage "1365" @default.
• W1550489100 abstract "I. IntroductionA frazzled law student sits down for a long night of reading. Torts, civil procedure, criminal law-all fascinating of course-yet, thoughts of spring break insist on interrupting. Taking a mental break, the law student decides to check out airfare prices on the Internet. On the student's favorite search engine, Google, she enters the search term Delta, to find price quotes for her preferred airline. As the search results appear, the student notices on the right hand side of her screen. One of these sponsored links reads Cheap Airfare Here! Intrigued, especially given the financial woes of a law student, the student clicks the uniform resource locater (URL), and a discount airfare website appears. If the student purchases from this discount airfare website, has the company benefited from the good will of Delta? Did the student associate Delta with the sponsored link? In other words, did the student believe she would find cheap Delta airfare if she clicked on the sponsored link? Should this constitute a valid claim for trademark infringement against the discount airfare company? Against Google?The Internet poses significant challenges to the legal world on a daily basis. These challenges leave lawyers, companies, and courts struggling to adapt legal doctrines and theories to a rapidly changing and evolving environment. One area of particular concern arises in the area of Internet advertising and potential trademark infringement issues. ' The past several years placed numerous courts in a position to evaluate the hypothetical presented above; however, settlements out of court continue to leave this area of the law in flux.2 Several Internet search engines, including WhenU.com, Netscape, and Google,3 face on-going resentment and criticism from trademark holders concerning the use of trademarks in Internet advertising models. This resentment often culminates in costly legal battles with neither side claiming any clear victories or gaining any guidance from courts as to proper trademark use in Internet advertising.Courts face the daunting task of applying traditional trademark law to a host of Internet-specific issues.4 Trademark holders continue fighting the battle to protect their marks, specifically the goodwill and consumer recognition associated with these marks-two important goals behind trademark law.5 Search engines have fought back hard to protect this highly profitable revenue stream.6This Note primarily focuses on two recent decisions, the Ninth Circuit Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp.7 case decided in January of 2004 and the Eastern District of Virginia Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Google, Inc.8 case partially decided in December of 2004. This Note evaluates the advertising technologies utilized by the defendants in each case-search engines Google and Netscape-and aims to evaluate how traditional trademark doctrines apply to the use of trademarks in Internet advertising.9 Although this Note focuses primarily on Google's AdWords advertising model, the analysis and recommendations reach further than Google.10 One aspect of Google's business involves licensing its search engine and AdWords technology to other search engines, most notably America Online (AOL).11 Google and AOL together account for 55% of market share in the search engine market.12Google's AdWords technology affects a significant portion of Internet advertising. Therefore, any legal conclusions reached concerning Google's liability in the analysis section of this Note also apply to any search engine with an advertising model similar or identical to AdWords.This Note first advocates an extension of the contributory trademark infringement doctrine to search engines utilizing a cost-per-click (CPC) Internet advertising model like AdWords.13 In addition, this Note aims to further the current legal discussion14 by addressing the application of both direct trademark infringement and contributory trademark infringement in this context. …" @default.
• W1550489100 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1550489100 creator A5017992294 @default.
• W1550489100 date "2005-07-01" @default.
• W1550489100 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1550489100 title "Search Engines and Internet Advertisers: Just One Click Away from Trademark Infringement?" @default.
• W1550489100 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W1550489100 type Work @default.
• W1550489100 sameAs 1550489100 @default.
• W1550489100 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W1550489100 countsByYear W15504891002013 @default.
• W1550489100 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1550489100 hasAuthorship W1550489100A5017992294 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConcept C110875604 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConcept C112698675 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConcept C2779027411 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConcept C2780639879 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConceptScore W1550489100C110875604 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConceptScore W1550489100C112698675 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConceptScore W1550489100C136764020 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConceptScore W1550489100C144133560 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConceptScore W1550489100C17744445 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConceptScore W1550489100C199539241 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConceptScore W1550489100C2777381055 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConceptScore W1550489100C2779027411 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConceptScore W1550489100C2780639879 @default.
• W1550489100 hasConceptScore W1550489100C41008148 @default.
• W1550489100 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1550489100 hasLocation W15504891001 @default.
• W1550489100 hasOpenAccess W1550489100 @default.
• W1550489100 hasPrimaryLocation W15504891001 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W1511827765 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W1545701143 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W155049221 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W1583856490 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W1587016617 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W1757907487 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W1761141373 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W1799258972 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W2162627277 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W2206088040 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W2233435639 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W2293785519 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W2364256277 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W2482831773 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W3124592779 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W3200407837 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W44965414 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W56872756 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W1497161826 @default.
• W1550489100 hasRelatedWork W2095605685 @default.
• W1550489100 hasVolume "62" @default.
• W1550489100 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1550489100 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1550489100 magId "1550489100" @default.
• W1550489100 workType "article" @default.