Social Media Monitoring Prevents Trademark Infringement PR Nightmares

In this week’s episode of “The Future of Engagement” Murray Newlands talks about the Jack Daniels’ case and how they – and you  – can turn publicity in your favor.

Companies have a recognizable logo that customers can identify anywhere. The public has a feeling or memory for brands that keeps them loyal.

Protecting your logos and trademarks is essential.

Legally, a brand MUST act when their trademark is infringed or the law may see that as a sign they are not protecting it and rule against them in the future.

Suing over trackmark infringement can result in the public
viewing your response negatively – and you can lose customers.

Jack Daniels, the whiskey manufacturer, recently found itself in a case of trademark infringement over a book cover that resembled their bottle’s logo.

Because they addressed the issue with a cease and decease letter and offered to pay for cover changes, they became the “good guys” in this scenario instead of the “big, bad company”.

Rather than a lawsuit that would make them look aggressive, they are seen as wisely protecting their brand while being more than fair to the author.

Handled correctly, even trademark infringement issues can garner
positive publicity that companies can use to their benefit.

It was clear to the public that they weren’t trying to get money out of the author, but only wanted to protect their brand. Brands are required by law to object or they lose the ability to do so.

Jack Daniels handled this in a way that generated publicity that
favored them and avoided negativity from the public.

Turning bad situations into good publicity is
something every company should strive to do.

Jack Daniels was wise to develop a plan that turned this case into good publicity. If something negative is brought to the company’s attention too late it could be a lost cause and take lots of monetary funds to fix the situation.

Social media monitoring is something that companies
should invest in to avoid any possible damage.

Anyone can post anything at any time about your company and can cause lots of damage – if caught too late. People can read a negative review and cease to buy your products or services OR trademark or copyright infringement could be happening.

You need to implement a trademark monitoring and protection program.

DO that with social media monitoring and you can be alert and know what goes on regarding your company – immediately – so you can take action!

Social media monitoring tools can make it easier to keep track of your brand online. SMM tools like Alerti can collect the data for you from everywhere on the web from social networks to blogs to news sources.

Social Media Monitoring is what makes is possible for you to know where
your brand is being talked about and see a sentimental analysis.

Every company should have a form of social media monitoring that can assist in preventing any problems in the first place. You can get to know your audience better as well so you can keep your presence in a good light and keep consumers loyal to the brand.

Highlights:

Develop a plan to turn negative publicity and comments into positive ones that can make the company come off unscathed.Social media monitoring use can assist in keeping track of your brand online.A SMM tool can do the monitoring for you and provide you the results in easy to read formats.

Click here for your free white paper on social media monitoring.

Tagged as: brand protection, internet law, social media monitoring, trademark infringement, trademark law

View the original article here

Read More

Internet Law: Key Federal Court Holding on Issue of Personal Jurisdiction and Web Targeting in Trademark Infringement Case

This is a guest post by Internet Law Attorney Richard Newman about a recent Federal Court Ruling that held that the laws of one state – in this case New York – DO appply to Web sites accessible from anywhere.

The case is Mrs. United States National Pageant Inc. v. Miss United States of America Organization LLC. The holding in this trademark litigation is a key one.

Specifically, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has held that personal jurisdiction in New York over a non-resident website based on a national marketing campaign was proper where the campaign conduct specifically pursued a response from all fifty states.

Stated another way, the court held that “it would not be sensible, or equitable, to interpret the references in case law to ‘targeting’ a jurisdiction as meaning that the defendants must have singled out New York as a particular focus of their commercial activity.”

[Note from Gail @GrowMap: In other words, just because the site
was not SPECIFICALLY for New York residents only that did NOT
mean they were not intentionally targeting those residents.]

The plaintiff here registered the mark “Miss United States,” and uses it, along with variations thereof such as “Mrs. United States” to operate beauty pageants around the country. The plaintiff has run the Mrs. United States pageant for the past 25 years. When one of the individual defendants approached the plaintiff seeking to buy some of its trademarks, the plaintiff refused to sell.

Subsequently, the defendants formed a beauty pageant company utilizing names such as “Miss United States of America” and in conjunction therewith promoted pageants via the website “missunitedstatesofamerica.com.”

Mrs. United States National Pageant Inc. filed suit against the defendants in the Western District of New York for trademark infringement and moved for injunctive relief to preclude the use of the allegedly infringing marks. The defendants took the position that the court lacks personal jurisdiction because they do not reside in New York and that they did not intentionally target the “missunitedstatesofamerica.com” website at New York residents.

The court disagreed, finding that the defendants had sufficient
minimum contacts with New York and that the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants was reasonable because
the tortious conduct caused an injury within the state.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the jurisdictional impact of Internet based marketing such as that done on the “missunitedstatesofamerica.com” website.

Historically, courts have used a sliding-scale approach when analyzing related issues. On one end of the spectrum are purely passive websites, or information websites. Conversely, on the other end of the spectrum are those websites that interact with forum residents by transmitting files and documents.

The court examined the level of interactivity and commercial
nature of the exchange of information on the website.

It determined that the case was somewhere in the middle because the defendants’ website offers links that enable visitors to submit applications to become contestants and to purchase related products.

Specifically, the court stated that “[t]he evidence suggests that defendants sought to solicit contestants from New York (as well as from the other forty-nine states), and that through their website, they provided a means, through downloadable forms, for New York residents to become contestants in defendants’ pageant. Such activity indicates that defendants knowingly and purposefully reached out to New York residents in furtherance of the pageant business.”

The court rejected as immaterial defendants’ argument
that they did not target New York, specifically.

“This is not like a website that could be accessed from any state, where the defendant has no particular interest in which states interest comes from,” the court said. “The defendants targeted the entire nation because they are seeking to crown a national winner from among contestants from every state.”

The contestant application page listed all fifty states. “If defendants choose to reach out in that way to each state, they should not be heard to complain if they are dragged into court in one of those states as a result of that activity.”

Richard Newman is an Internet Lawyer at Hinch Newman LLP who specializes in Internet marketing and advertising law, complex commercial litigation, and regulatory compliance matters.

DISCLAIMER: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Tagged as: internet law, law, trademark infringement, trademark law

View the original article here

Read More