"Did a competitor's paid search keyword bidding & ad copy create likelihood of confusion under legal standards?"
When a competitor bids on your client's trademark, or your client is accused of doing so, the outcome often turns on how the ad auction actually worked: which keywords were targeted, what match types and negative keywords were in place, what the ad copy said, and what a consumer saw on the results page.
Amanda Schlumpf reconstructs that record from the platforms' own data and translates it into analysis that maps onto the likelihood-of-confusion factors courts apply, including the Polaroid and Sleekcraft frameworks. Her keyword bidding and search methodology has withstood a Daubert challenge in federal district court.
Not sure what to request? Retaining a consulting expert before serving discovery helps ensure the right records are preserved and produced.
Federal trademark infringement and brand dilution dispute involving keyword ad bidding, search positioning, and digital product placement.
Trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute concerning online apparel catalogs, targeted digital advertising, and historic university mark usage.
High-stakes federal reverse trademark confusion and brand encroachment litigation involving flagship consumer battery product launches versus senior e-commerce marks.
Courts generally look beyond the keyword purchase alone to the full context, including ad copy, the search results page, and evidence of actual or likely consumer confusion. Expert analysis documents that context from the advertising platforms' own records so counsel can argue it under the governing likelihood-of-confusion factors.
Yes. Structured discovery productions such as CSV exports of search terms reports, change history, auction insights, and billing records can be audited. Early retention helps counsel request the exact reports needed before platform data retention windows close.
Send a short note. Responses are provided within 24 business hours.
Contact