You Be the Judge: Network Automation Inc. v. Advanced Systems
Concepts, Inc.1
Facts: Network Automation and Advanced Systems Concepts both sold job scheduling and management
software, and both advertised on the Internet. Network sold its software under the trademarked name
Auto-Mate, while Systems used the trademark ActiveBatch. Customers paid between $995 and $10,995
to use these software programs.
Google AdWords is a program that sells “keywords,” which are search terms that trigger the display of a
sponsor’s advertisement. When a user enters a keyword, Google displays the links generated by its own
algorithm in the main part of the page, along with advertisements in a separate “sponsored links” section
next to or above the objective results. Multiple advertisers can purchase the same keyword.
Although ActiveBatch was Systems’ trademark, Network purchased it as a keyword. This purchase meant
that anyone who googled “ActiveBatch” would see a web page where the top results were links to
Systems’ own website and various articles about the product. But in the “Sponsored Sites” section of the
page, users would see the following ad:
Job Scheduler
Windows Job Scheduling + Much More. Easy to Deploy, Scalable. D/L Trial
www.NetworkAutomation.com
Sometimes, they would also see an equivalent ad for Systems’ software – the real ActiveBatch.
Systems alleged that this use of ActiveBatch was a violation of its trademark in the word. The trial court
issued an injunction prohibiting Network’s purchase of the Google keyword. Network appealed.
You Be the Judge: Has Network violated Systems’ trademark by purchasing it as a Google keyword?
Argument for Systems: Network and Systems are direct competitors. Their two products — Auto-Mate
and ActiveBatch — perform the same functions and are both advertised on the Internet. Network is
deliberately confusing customers about whose product ActiveBatch really is.
When consumers use the Internet they tend not to read carefully, they just click away. Few customers
analyze the web address of an ad to make sure they are going to the right website. Indeed, customers may
not even be aware of who owns ActiveBatch. The Network ad certainly does not reveal that Systems
owns this software. Customers could easily assume that whatever web address comes up belongs to the
rightful owner.
When customers search for a generic term, they know that they will encounter links from a variety of
sources but when they look for a trade name their expectation is that they will only be linked to that
specific product. For this reason, the use of another company’s trade name can create tremendous
confusion.
Network has bought the right to use Systems’ trademark as a ruse to fool potential customers. This
subterfuge is exactly the sort of behavior that trademark laws are designed to prevent.
Argument for Network: Today, most consumers are sophisticated about the Internet. They skip from site
to site, ready to hit the back button whenever they are not satisfied with a site’s contents. They fully
expect to find some sites that are not what they imagine based on a glance at the domain name or search
engine summary. Consumers do not form any firm expectations about the sponsorship of a website until
they have seen the landing page — if then.
Even if Systems’ arguments were true for consumer purchases, the typical customer for this software is a
sophisticated businessperson buying an expensive product. These purchasers are likely to be very careful
and will not be confused by Google ads. Also, they will probably understand the mechanics of Internet
search engines and the nature of sponsored links.
In the end, Network’s intent was not to confuse consumers, but rather to allow them to compare its
product to ActiveBatch. That goal is a completely appropriate use of a trademark.
1 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4488,United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, 2011.