This HTML5 document contains 65 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n5https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n9http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/
n12https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4165509/google-inc-v-american-blind-wallpaper-factory-inc/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Google,_Inc._v._American_Blind_&_Wallpaper_Factory,_Inc.
rdf:type
yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:WikicatUnitedStatesDistrictCourtCases
rdfs:label
Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.
rdfs:comment
Google, Inc. v. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Inc., No. 5:03-cv-05340 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007), was a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The court concluded that, pending the outcome of a jury trial, Google AdWords may be in violation of trademark law (see federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)) because it (1) allowed arbitrary advertisers to key their ads (see keyword advertising) to American Blind's trademarks and (2) may confuse search-engine users initially interested in visiting American Blind's website into visiting its competitors' websites (see Initial Interest Confusion doctrine).
dbp:name
Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.
foaf:depiction
n9:US_DC_NorCal.svg
dcterms:subject
dbc:Google_litigation dbc:United_States_trademark_case_law dbc:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_California_cases dbc:2007_in_United_States_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
25137381
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1100229287
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:AdWords dbr:Playboy_Enterprises,_Inc._v._Netscape_Communications_Corp. dbr:Eric_Goldman dbr:Consumer_confusion dbr:Jeremy_Fogel dbr:1-800-CONTACTS_v._WhenU_Inc. dbr:Trademark_infringement dbr:Trademark dbr:Initial_Interest_Confusion dbr:Rosetta_Stone_v._Google_Inc dbr:Brookfield_Communications,_Inc._v._West_Coast_Entertainment_Corp. dbr:Network_Automation,_Inc._v._Advanced_Systems_Concepts,_Inc. dbr:Lanham_Act dbr:Keyword_advertising dbc:2007_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Summary_judgment dbr:Google dbr:Rescuecom_Corp._v._Google_Inc. dbc:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_California_cases dbc:Google_litigation dbc:United_States_trademark_case_law dbr:Summary_judgement dbr:AMF_Inc._v._Sleekcraft_Boats dbr:800-JR_Cigar,_Inc._v._GoTo.com,_Inc. dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_California
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n12:
owl:sameAs
n5:4kdUJ freebase:m.09gchq3 yago-res:Google,_Inc._v._American_Blind_&_Wallpaper_Factory,_Inc. wikidata:Q5583796
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Google_litigation dbt:Infobox_United_States_District_Court_Case dbt:Reflist dbt:UnitedStatesCode dbt:Short_description
dbo:thumbnail
n9:US_DC_NorCal.svg?width=300
dbp:docket
5
dbp:court
dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_California
dbp:holding
Google's request for summary judgment that AdWords does not infringe American Blind's trademarks was in part denied because of insufficient facts to establish that Google's use of those marks did not cause consumer confusion.
dbp:imagesize
150
dbp:keywords
dbr:Trademark dbr:AdWords
dbo:abstract
Google, Inc. v. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Inc., No. 5:03-cv-05340 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007), was a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The court concluded that, pending the outcome of a jury trial, Google AdWords may be in violation of trademark law (see federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)) because it (1) allowed arbitrary advertisers to key their ads (see keyword advertising) to American Blind's trademarks and (2) may confuse search-engine users initially interested in visiting American Blind's website into visiting its competitors' websites (see Initial Interest Confusion doctrine). Google v. American Blind was not the first case to address trademark infringement in the context of online keyword advertising (see Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 1-800-CONTACTS v. WhenU Inc.). Nevertheless, it generated interest in the trademark-law community because it came on the heels of Playboy v. Netscape—a case that failed to resolve the legality of keyword advertising in which the origins of ads are clearly designated. Despite a four-year battle, American Blind settled with Google soon after this decision, hence leaving much of this legal territory unexplored.
dbp:dateDecided
Apr. 18, 2007
dbp:judge
dbr:Jeremy_Fogel
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Google,_Inc._v._American_Blind_&_Wallpaper_Factory,_Inc.?oldid=1100229287&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
15152
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Google,_Inc._v._American_Blind_&_Wallpaper_Factory,_Inc.