3. Ultimately a judge would have to decide if this ever goes forward but reading the the two fillings for the two separate lawsuits, both are no more that just PR statements with news clippings.
The purpose here is likely an attempt at obtaining documents via discovery, doubtful it goes that far, it's an obvious money-grub scheme.
Berman helped found his namesake firm in 1993. He was lead attorney in individual and class action cases against Enron, Washington Public Power Supply System, Purdue Pharma (over OxyContin), Exxon (with respect to the Exxon Valdez oil spill), Boeing, Intel (over alleged monopoly practices), Michael Milken, the Rio Tinto mining company (with respect to human rights violations and environmental destruction in New Guinea),[3] and VISA and MasterCard (in which he achieved a $3 billion settlement). He was also instrumental in the state attorneys general’s litigation against the Liggett Group and subsequent $216 billion settlement, against the tobacco industry, serving as special assistant to the various states. He was lead counsel for Microsoft during part of its defense against antitrust claims.[4]
It's not really spray and pray if their firm is focused on this. They certainly seem accomplished.
> Our work includes representing consumers, municipalities and other groups in cases against unscrupulous corporations or individuals who attempt to subvert principles of fairness and equity in the quest for ill-gotten profits. We also work to protect the interests of intellectual property owners, whistleblowers and those seeking enforcement of human-rights laws.
>Hagens Berman was founded in 1993 by attorneys Carl Hagens and Steve Berman, with the goal of representing plaintiffs in class actions and multi-party, large-scale complex litigation. We have stayed true to that purpose and along the way have recovered billions of dollars for our clients, while winning the praise of judges and the accolades, and awards of our peers.
>> "This Steve Berman guy behind the suit was a Microsoft lawyer, it's notable becase another Microsoft lawyer tried and failed to sue Google on ad/antitrust grounds a few years back"
Even worst, he uses Microsoft Windows, making this a clear Microsoft smear against the angelic Google. :)
>>This is the second class action attempt launched against Google by this trial-lawyer outfit
As if Google is any better than them.
Google will probably end up paying for the clicks not deemed individually fraudulent, TOS or not.
Parody is a specific legal defense against trademark infringement. The idea that trademark holders are always required to 'defend' their trademark regardless of context is simply false.
Given that the use here is noncommercial (Peng! is not selling a product in Google's area of business), it's almost certainly the case that Google is under no obligation to engage in any legal action. Even commercial parody can be protected, though the criteria are somewhat more complex.
Interestingly, it's easier to legally parody stronger trademarks because of public recognition of the parody - see Louis Vuitton v Haute Diggity Dog for an example. Google certainly qualifies as a strong trademark, although the parody name here isn't as memorable as 'Chewy Vuiton'.
A more apt comparison would be if someone was fooled by an Onion article on the domain http://www.cnn-news.com that had CNN at the top of the page. I'd imagine the vast majority of people would simply assume that was CNN.
> not quite sure why my comment is getting downvoted.
Kneejerk responses.
You're entirely right that Google at least has to legally take some action, as otherwise others can point at the precedent when doing actual attacks on Google trademarks.
It's worth pointing out that this view, while common, is a misconception. IANAL, but as I understand it a company need only address blatant, public infringement. If it could be reasonably argued that this is a parody (and that can at least be argued, even if you disagree), it wouldn't be considered for the purposes of abandoned trademarks.
And a minor point - "precedent" is commonly used to mean simply "that which came before" but it has a very specific legal definition (generally just decisions issued by a court) that doesn't apply here.
Has anyone ever provided an example of a brand losing its trademark status for not aggressively addressing minor/maybe/kind-of/sort-of infringement? It seems like a scary story designed to keep IP lawyers fully employed.
1. This is the second class action attempt launched against Google by this trial-lawyer outfit: http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/05/02/class-action-lawsuit...
2. This Steve Berman guy behind the suit was a Microsoft lawyer, it's notable becase another Microsoft lawyer tried and failed to sue Google on ad/antitrust grounds a few years back: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110901/14553415771/court...
3. Ultimately a judge would have to decide if this ever goes forward but reading the the two fillings for the two separate lawsuits, both are no more that just PR statements with news clippings.
The purpose here is likely an attempt at obtaining documents via discovery, doubtful it goes that far, it's an obvious money-grub scheme.