Jurin

Jurin v. Google Inc.

Good Law
695 F. Supp. 2d 1117·2010 WL 727226·49 Communications Reg. (P&F) 1017·95 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1803·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18208
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 1, 20102:09-cv-3065California2,531 words

Opinion

Opinion

England, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Through this action Plaintiff Daniel Jurin (“Plaintiff’) alleges several violations of state and federal law arising out of the use of the trademarked name “Styrotrim” as a suggested keyword in the “AdWords” program operated by Defendant Google, Inc. (“Defendant”). Presently before the Court is a Motion by Defendant to Dismiss the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Causes of Action alleged by Plaintiff for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Defendant also moves for costs and to stay the proceedings. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motions are granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

This dispute is based on Plaintiff challenging the lawfulness of Defendant’s Keyword Suggestion tool in its for-profit “Google AdWords” program.

A. Background on Search Engines

Defendant is a highly recognized corporation most known for its widely-used search engine website. As part of operating its search engine, Defendant “indexes” websites, collecting information regarding their contents so that it may then store the information for use in formulas which respond to search…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.