A federal court has dismissed Wells Fargo's application for interim injunctive relief against WhenU, a software maker that launched rival pop-up advertisements when customers accessed the bank's website. Said Judge Nancy Edmunds (US District Court of Michigan, Southern Division): "the fact that some WhenU advertisements appear on a computer screen at the same time the plaintiffs' web pages are visible in a separate window does not constitute a use in commerce of the plaintiffs' marks". The bank alleged copyright and trade mark infringement.
WhenU makes software that tracks the movement of websurfers and serves up targeted advertisements to those who are likely to make a purchase. For example, an ad for travel site Priceline.com might appear while a surfer is visiting Travelocity.com. The software is bundled with other popular downloads such as peer-to-peer software BearShare or weather applications, that consumers use for free by agreeing to receive occasional ads. About 30 million internet users have WhenU's software on their desktops. Said the judge: “The fact is that the computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded WhenU's computer software. While pop-up advertising may crowd out the U-Haul advertisement screen through a separate window, this act is not trade mark or copyright infringement, or unfair competition".
Wells Fargo described this decision as "a set-back" for consumers: "This form of advertising can create confusion for impacted customers who visit financial sites and believe the offers they are receiving are from that financial institution", said a Wells Fargo representative. "The source of these pop-up advertisements may not always be clear to the customer. It's important for customers to know who they are dealing with online, and we took action to eliminate this source of confusion for our customers". No court date has yet to be set for the full trial.
The IPKat, despite its instinctive and deep-rooted dislike of all pop-up advertisements, is keeping an open mind on the outcome of the next round of this litigation since neither the copyright nor the trade mark issues are susceptible of easy resolution.
How to kill pop-up ads here, here and here
Things that pop up here, here and here
WhenU makes software that tracks the movement of websurfers and serves up targeted advertisements to those who are likely to make a purchase. For example, an ad for travel site Priceline.com might appear while a surfer is visiting Travelocity.com. The software is bundled with other popular downloads such as peer-to-peer software BearShare or weather applications, that consumers use for free by agreeing to receive occasional ads. About 30 million internet users have WhenU's software on their desktops. Said the judge: “The fact is that the computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded WhenU's computer software. While pop-up advertising may crowd out the U-Haul advertisement screen through a separate window, this act is not trade mark or copyright infringement, or unfair competition".
Wells Fargo described this decision as "a set-back" for consumers: "This form of advertising can create confusion for impacted customers who visit financial sites and believe the offers they are receiving are from that financial institution", said a Wells Fargo representative. "The source of these pop-up advertisements may not always be clear to the customer. It's important for customers to know who they are dealing with online, and we took action to eliminate this source of confusion for our customers". No court date has yet to be set for the full trial.
The IPKat, despite its instinctive and deep-rooted dislike of all pop-up advertisements, is keeping an open mind on the outcome of the next round of this litigation since neither the copyright nor the trade mark issues are susceptible of easy resolution.
How to kill pop-up ads here, here and here
Things that pop up here, here and here
NO INTERIM INJUNCTION AGAINST ONLINE CONTEXTUAL ADVERTISING (“POP-UPS”), BUT THE FIGHT GOES ON
![NO INTERIM INJUNCTION AGAINST ONLINE CONTEXTUAL ADVERTISING (“POP-UPS”), BUT THE FIGHT GOES ON]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, November 21, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html