Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.
2012 US Supreme court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which ruled that when software merely acts as a "conduit" for providing services over the internet, and does not have an independent value per se, it does not constitute a "good" being "sold or transported in commerce" for the purposes of establishing whether or not a trademark for "computer software" has been "abandoned" under 15 U.S.C. § 1064 and 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (the relevant sections of the federal Lanham Act.)[1]
Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Full case name | Lens.com, Inc., Appellant, v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Appellee. |
Decided | August 3 2012 |
Citation(s) | 686 F.3d 1376 |
Case history | |
Prior history | 92,049,925 (USPTO (2011)) |
Holding | |
A trademark granted in connection with "computer software" can be considered abandoned if the registered holder merely uses the computer software in a manner that is "incidental" to its retail sales of other goods. Computer software used in that manner may, as a determination of fact, not be considered a "good" that is "sold or transported in commerce" for the purposes of 15 U.S.C. § 1127. | |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Pauline Newman, Richard Linn, Kimberly Ann Moore |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Linn, joined by a unanimous court |
Laws applied | |
15 U.S.C. § 1064, 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (Lanham Act) |
The case was important because it clarified the Federal Circuit's view of the "use in commerce" requirement for trademarks when a non-traditional use of the trademark was employed. This had implications for trademark holders who held "computer software"-related intellectual property and sold goods over the internet. This also affected trademark holders who used their marks in non-traditional manners,[2] or those whose marks were inappropriately described in the trademark filing.[3]