ClickZ: Claria Fires Back at L.L. Bean Suits Against Advertisers

Claria launched a new lawsuit against retailer L.L. Bean, charging that the outdoor gear seller's own suit against Claria's advertisers is a deliberate act of interference with its business. The suit also charges L.L. Bean of disparaging Claria and conspiring to intimidate potential Claria clients. L.L. Bean, along with joining a lawsuit initiated by other major online brands, sued Nordstrom, J.C. Penney, Gevalia Kaffee, and Atkins Nutritionals, claiming they were users of Claria's services and that those services infringed L.L. Bean's trademark when their ads popped up over the L.L. Bean site.

The L.L. Bean suits are just two among many lawsuits filed in the past year dealing with companies that feel that their trademarks are violated when other advertisers use brand names or locations as a means of targeting advertising. Traditionally, trademark law has been organized around the concept of reducing consumer confusion, rather than granting real property rights to names and marks. But just what constitutes customer confusion is up for interpretation, and may be settled once and for all only by future legislation.

Claria's choice to lodge the suit in the Eastern District of Texas is interesting because neither party to the litigation is based there, although a former client of Claria is. This disctrict has proven friendly to local companies in the past, with colorful judges whose decisions are widely read for their use of idiom, if not their jurisprudence. The district has a reputation for being particularly unfriendly to companies from the Northeast and is used as an example of this in law school civil procedure classes.