Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 19,800+ case briefs...

1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013)


1-800 Contacts, Inc. (1-800) (plaintiff) was a major retailer of contact lenses that registered the trademark “1800CONTACTS.” Lens.com (defendant) competed with 1-800 for internet sales of contact lenses. Lens.com had contracts with several affiliates that received commissions if they successfully made sales for Lens.com. Some of these affiliates purchased keywords from Google’s AdWords. Through AdWords, Google would use the keywords in a potential customer’s search to generate displays of sponsored links, called impressions. Lens.com’s affiliates purchased some keywords that were similar to 1-800’s mark. When 1-800 searched Google using terms identical or similar to its mark “1800CONTACTS,” some searches yielded impressions with links to Lens.com. However, the impressions themselves did not use 1-800’s trademark. 1-800 sued Lens.com for trademark infringement, alleging that Lens.com was creating initial-interest confusion. At trial, 1-800 presented evidence that one customer had canceled her Lens.com order once she realized that Lens.com was not 1-800. Additionally, 1-800 presented the results of a survey in which consumers were asked whether a Lens.com advertisement appeared to be affiliated with 1-800. The survey showed an average net consumer-confusion rate of 7.4 percent. The district court awarded summary judgment to Lens.com and dismissed 1-800’s infringement claim. The court reasoned that purchasing keywords using a protected mark could not, in and of itself, cause a likelihood of confusion unless the resulting impressions also used the protected mark. Additionally, the court excluded 1-800’s survey from evidence because the court had concerns about the survey’s methodology. 1-800 appealed, arguing, among other things, that its survey was improperly excluded.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Hartz, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 507,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 507,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 19,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial