Stayart v. Yahoo!, Inc.
Stayart v.Yahoo!, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 2d 873
Facts: Beverly Stayart, humanitarian and scholarly online writer, existed on the Internet by her full name or as Bev Stayart. Based on searches for her name that seemed to associate her with online pharmacies and pornographic sites, Stayart notified Yahoo that its search engine was generating the illegitimate search results. Yahoo refused to remove the results.
Procedural Posture: Stayart sued Yahoo and Various, another search engine, for false endorsement under the Lanham Act. Yahoo and Various moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Issue: Was the use of Stayart’s mark/her identity by Yahoo and Various likely to create confusion concerning her sponsorship or approval of the services offered at the websites she viewed?
Preexisting Rules:
1.) Lanham Act: Section 43(a): 15 USC §1125(a)(1): “Any person who…in connection with any…services…uses in commerce any…name…which—
(A)is likely to cause confusion…as to the origin, sponsorship…of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person…shall be held liable…by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
2.) Condit v. Star Editorial, Inc.: A party must at least allege an existing intent to commercialize an interest in identity to show likelihood of damage under the Lanham Act.
3.) CDA: 47 USC §230(c)(1): No “provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher…of any information provided by another information content provider.
Reasoning: Stayart’s complaint arises from distasteful association. She does not market her identity commercially, nor intend to commercialize. In claiming that she has never engaged in a promiscuous lifestyle, Stayart’s identity is completely unrelated to the services offered at these sites. Nobody looking for information on her would be fooled by going to any of the sites. Confusion with little or no meaningful effect in the marketplace would be of no consequence in establishing initial interest confusion. Stayart also failed to show that Yahoo used her name in connection with their goods and services. Furthermore, Yahoo did not create the content that Stayart complained of. Yahoo acted as an interactive computer service and is immune under the CDA.
Holding: The court dismissed Stayart’s claims.
Stayart v.Yahoo!, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 2d 873
Facts: Beverly Stayart, humanitarian and scholarly online writer, existed on the Internet by her full name or as Bev Stayart. Based on searches for her name that seemed to associate her with online pharmacies and pornographic sites, Stayart notified Yahoo that its search engine was generating the illegitimate search results. Yahoo refused to remove the results.
Procedural Posture: Stayart sued Yahoo and Various, another search engine, for false endorsement under the Lanham Act. Yahoo and Various moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Issue: Was the use of Stayart’s mark/her identity by Yahoo and Various likely to create confusion concerning her sponsorship or approval of the services offered at the websites she viewed?
Preexisting Rules:
1.) Lanham Act: Section 43(a): 15 USC §1125(a)(1): “Any person who…in connection with any…services…uses in commerce any…name…which—
(A)is likely to cause confusion…as to the origin, sponsorship…of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person…shall be held liable…by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
2.) Condit v. Star Editorial, Inc.: A party must at least allege an existing intent to commercialize an interest in identity to show likelihood of damage under the Lanham Act.
3.) CDA: 47 USC §230(c)(1): No “provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher…of any information provided by another information content provider.
Reasoning: Stayart’s complaint arises from distasteful association. She does not market her identity commercially, nor intend to commercialize. In claiming that she has never engaged in a promiscuous lifestyle, Stayart’s identity is completely unrelated to the services offered at these sites. Nobody looking for information on her would be fooled by going to any of the sites. Confusion with little or no meaningful effect in the marketplace would be of no consequence in establishing initial interest confusion. Stayart also failed to show that Yahoo used her name in connection with their goods and services. Furthermore, Yahoo did not create the content that Stayart complained of. Yahoo acted as an interactive computer service and is immune under the CDA.
Holding: The court dismissed Stayart’s claims.