Trademark Law Firm New Jersey Keyword Case Dismissed

The client consulted a trademark law firm New Jersey after learning that a competing business claimed exclusive rights over a phrase combining a city name and a common service descriptor. 

The advertising keywords reflected typical consumer search behavior and did not reproduce the competitor’s exact registered mark.
 

The trademark law firm New Jersey immediately evaluated whether the disputed phrase qualified for protection under federal trademark standards.

Under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and § 1125(a), infringement requires use of a protected mark in commerce that is likely to cause consumer confusion. 

A trademark law firm New Jersey must assess whether the allegedly infringed term is distinctive and legally protectable.
 

Generic or merely descriptive terms, particularly those combining geographic names and common industry descriptors, are generally weak and narrowly protected. 

The defense centered on the lack of inherent distinctiveness.

The trademark law firm New Jersey first examined whether the competitor’s claimed mark was protectable. 

Under federal trademark law, marks must be distinctive. Generic terms cannot receive protection, and geographically descriptive marks require proof of secondary meaning.
 

The disputed phrase consisted of:

A well known city name

A dictionary defined service term

The trademark law firm New Jersey argued that such combinations are weak and cannot support broad exclusive rights absent substantial evidence of secondary meaning.

Likelihood of confusion is evaluated using multifactor tests applied in the Third Circuit. 

The trademark law firm New Jersey analyzed similarity, marketing channels, consumer sophistication, and actual confusion evidence.
 

The defense demonstrated:

No identical reproduction of the competitor’s mark

Clear branding distinctions

No documented consumer confusion

Without confusion, infringement claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 could not succeed.

New Jersey unfair competition claims require proof of passing off or misleading conduct likely to confuse consumers. 

The trademark law firm New Jersey argued that using descriptive geographic keywords does not equate to misrepresentation.
 

The client did not:

Copy logos

Use identical branding

Suggest affiliation

The advertising language clearly identified the client’s own business.

Criminal liability in intellectual property disputes requires knowing and intentional infringement. 

The trademark law firm New Jersey demonstrated that the client relied on common digital marketing practices and had no intent to exploit another’s goodwill.
 

Upon notice of the dispute, the client voluntarily modified the advertising campaign. 

This prompt action supported the absence of willful infringement.

Authorities determined that the disputed keywords did not constitute criminal trademark infringement or actionable unfair competition. 

The trademark law firm New Jersey secured dismissal of the complaint at the investigative stage.
 

No indictment or criminal charge was filed.

After resolution, the trademark law firm New Jersey advised the client on risk mitigation strategies:

Conduct clearance searches before campaigns

Avoid incorporating distinctive brand identifiers

Document marketing rationale

Maintain rapid response protocols

Proactive review reduces future litigation risk.