Case Review and Principles Governing Application of Privacy Related Torts - Essay Example

In the previous history of the case, the plaintiff, Wentworth, lodged an amendment complaint against Settlement Funding, the defendants asserting that the defendant took part in actions that amounted to copyright violation, trademark dilution, injury to the business reputation and false representation in breach of sections 32 (1) and 43 (a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C pursuant to section 114 (1) and 1125 (a) (2006) (O’Neill 1). The plaintiff also claimed trademark violation and unfair competition under Pennsylvanian state law.

The plaintiff claims originate from the defendant’s supposed use of plaintiff’s emblems in two ways: through Google’s Adwords program and the “meta-tags” for defendant’s webpage (O’Neill 2). The plaintiff alleged that the two usages of the plaintiff’s brand name guarantees that a link to defendant’s webpage will appear instantly adjacent to a link to defendant’s webpage when people carry out internet searches for “J.G. Wentworth” or “JG Wentworth” (O’Neill 4). The plaintiff further claimed that the use of the plaintiff’s emblems constitute violating deeds that were aimed at confusing the consumers and to divert prospective customers away from the plaintiff’s webpage (O’Neill 6).

Plaintiff noted that this also would steal their potential customers and wear down the uniqueness of plaintiff’s emblems, therefore, resulting to a considerable loss of profits. In its judgment, the court granted the defendants the motion to dismiss and, therefore, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed (O’Neill 8). . In the previous history of the case, the plaintiff had moved to court and lodged claims against trademark violation and false advertisement. The plaintiff relied on sections 32 (1) and 43 (a) of the Lanham Act.

The plaintiff claims originate from the defendant’s supposed use of plaintiff’s emblems next to the defendant’s name in the search results. The plaintiff noted that the appearance of the trademark next to the defendant’s name could indicate a relationship with the defendant. In the first circuit, the court had discharged charges on trademark violation relating to material on the defendant’s webpages since none of the rings were branded “dating rings”, the trademark of the plaintiff.

However, the court permitted trademark violation linking to purchase to survive and dismissed the false advertisement claim. In the second circuit, the court established that this type of entry of the search results next to the plaintiff’s emblem included a “use” under the Lanham Act. In the case J.G Wentworth, S.S.C. Limited Partnership vs. Settlement Funding LLC, in order to determine breaches of section 32(1) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, the court, as according to Fisons Horticulture, Inc. vs. Vigoro Indus, Inc., 30F.3d 466, 472 (1994), required the plaintiff to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s emblem is lawful and protected by law, that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the mark and that the defendant’s use of the emblem to recognize goods or services was most probable to generate confusion regarding the origin of the goods (O’Neill 5).

Additionally, as according to the claims of the defendants, the plaintiff would not meet the third aspect of the Lanham Act on trademark