Court Rejects Initial Interest Confusion Claims for Competitive Keyword Ads–Regalo v. Aborder

The litigants compete in the market for baby/pet gates. The incumbent sells under the brands “Regalo” and “Carlson.” The defendant “Aborder contends that the use of trademark advertising through the purchase of Amazon sponsored ads cannot constitute trademark infringement without additional actions.”

This court is bound by the unfortunate Adler decision from the Fifth Circuit, which venerated the initial interest confusion doctrine to salvage an otherwise obviously unmeritorious keyword advertising case.

To support their bogus initial interest confusion claims, the trademark owner points to: (1) the visual similarity between the gates (the court describes Aborder’s offerings as “knockoffs”) and (2) the similarity of the photos in the product listings. What does any of this have to do with initial interest confusion??

Nothing. The court is unimpressed:

Regalo does not allege that Aborder’s purchased keyword ads are unlabeled or that, upon clicking on the advertisement, customers are linked to deceptively generic purchase pages. To the contrary, Regalo alleges, regarding these ads that, “[m]any times, it is not immediately obvious from the sponsored ad who is selling the advertised product[,]” and that “[w]hen customers ‘click’ or select a sponsored ad, they are taken to the advertised product’s detail page.” Put another way, when a customer clicks on the advertisement, they are directed to the product page for Aborder’s advertised products—Regalo’s general statements that “many times” the sponsored ads do not immediately make clear who the seller is does not allege that in the specific ads purchased by Aborder are unlabeled or misleading.

Trademark claims dismissed. In other words, despite the Adler decision’s reliance on initial interest confusion to prop up bogus keyword ad cases, the court decided it had seen enough to clean out the stupid initial interest confusion claims.

Case Citation: Regalo International LLC v. Aborder Products Inc., 2025 WL 2483167 (N.D. Tex. August 28, 2025).

More Posts About Keyword Advertising

* Lawsuits Over Competitive Keyword Advertising Are Still Stupid–NRRM v. American Dream Auto Protect * NJ Supreme Court Blesses Lawyers’ Competitive Keyword Ads (With a Baffling Caveat) * Ninth Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Ads–Lerner & Rowe v. Brown Engstrand * Second Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Advertising * Catching Up on Two Keyword Ad Cases * Competitor Isn’t Responsible for Google Knowledge Panel’s Contents–International Star Registry v. RGIFTS * TIL: “Texas Tamale” Is an Enforceable Trademark–Texas Tamale v. CPUSA2 * Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula * When Do Inbound Call Logs Show Consumer Confusion?–Adler v McNeil * Court Denies Injunction in Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit–Nursing CE Central v. Colibri * Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit Fails…Despite 236 Potentially Confused Customers–Lerner & Rowe v. Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet v. Troia * Trademark Owner Fucks Around With Keyword Ad Case & Finds Out–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Groupon * 1-800 Contacts Loses YET ANOTHER Trademark Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Ads–1-800 Contacts v. Warby Parker * Court Dismisses Trademark Claims Over Internal Search Results–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Groupon * Georgia Supreme Court Blesses Google’s Keyword Ad Sales–Edible IP v. Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v. Luxy * Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)–Reflex v. Luxy * Fifth Circuit Says Keyword Ads Could Contribute to Initial Interest Confusion (UGH)–Adler v. McNeil * Google’s Search Disambiguation Doesn’t Create Initial Interest Confusion–Aliign v. lululemon * Ohio Bans Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers * Want to Engage in Anti-Competitive Trademark Bullying? Second Circuit Says: Great, Have a Nice Day!–1-800 Contacts v. FTC * Selling Keyword Ads Isn’t Theft or Conversion–Edible IP v. Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless…. –Adler v. Reyes & Adler v. McNeil * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in False Advertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. Newport Fishing * IP/Internet/Antitrust Professor Amicus Brief in 1-800 Contacts v. FTC * New Jersey Attorney Ethics Opinion Blesses Competitive Keyword Advertising (…or Does It?) * Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Dr. Greenberg v. Perfect Body Image * The Florida Bar Regulates, But Doesn’t Ban, Competitive Keyword Ads * Rounding Up Three Recent Keyword Advertising Cases–Comphy v. Amazon & More * Do Adjacent Organic Search Results Constitute Trademark Infringement? Of Course Not…But…–America CAN! v. CDF * The Ongoing Saga of the Florida Bar’s Angst About Competitive Keyword Advertising * Your Periodic Reminder That Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Passport Health v. Avance * Restricting Competitive Keyword Ads Is Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts * Another Failed Trademark Suit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising–JIVE v. Wine Racks America * Negative Keywords Help Defeat Preliminary Injunction–DealDash v. ContextLogic * The Florida Bar and Competitive Keyword Advertising: A Tragicomedy (in 3 Parts) * Another Court Says Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesn’t Cause Confusion * Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesn’t Show Bad Intent–ONEpul v. BagSpot * Brief Roundup of Three Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Developments * Interesting Tidbits From FTC’s Antitrust Win Against 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Restrictions * 1-800 Contacts Charges Higher Prices Than Its Online Competitors, But They Are OK With That–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts * Amazon Defeats Lawsuit Over Its Keyword Ad Purchases–Lasoff v. Amazon * More Evidence Why Keyword Advertising Litigation Is Waning * Court Dumps Crappy Trademark & Keyword Ad Case–ONEPul v. BagSpot * AdWords Buys Using Geographic Terms Support Personal Jurisdiction–Rilley v. MoneyMutual * FTC Sues 1-800 Contacts For Restricting Competitive Keyword Advertising * Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Will Go To A Jury–Edible Arrangements v. Provide Commerce * Texas Ethics Opinion Approves Competitive Keyword Ads By Lawyers * Court Beats Down Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit–Beast Sports v. BPI * Another Murky Opinion on Lawyers Buying Keyword Ads on Other Lawyers’ Names–In re Naert * Keyword Ad Lawsuit Isn’t Covered By California’s Anti-SLAPP Law * Confusion From Competitive Keyword Advertising? Fuhgeddaboudit * Competitive Keyword Advertising Permitted As Nominative Use–ElitePay Global v. CardPaymentOptions * Google And Yahoo Defeat Last Remaining Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising * Mixed Ruling in Competitive Keyword Advertising Case–Goldline v. Regal * Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Infogroup v. DatabaseLLC * Damages from Competitive Keyword Advertising Are “Vanishingly Small” * More Defendants Win Keyword Advertising Lawsuits * Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails Badly * Duplicitous Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuits–Fareportal v. LBF (& Vice-Versa) * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v. OxBlue * Want To Know Amazon’s Confidential Settlement Terms For A Keyword Advertising Lawsuit? Merry Christmas! * Florida Allows Competitive Keyword Advertising By Lawyers * Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Unceremoniously Dismissed–Infostream v. Avid * Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Allied Interstate v. Kimmel & Silverman * More Evidence That Competitive Keyword Advertising Benefits Trademark Owners * Suing Over Keyword Advertising Is A Bad Business Decision For Trademark Owners * Florida Proposes to Ban Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers * More Confirmation That Google Has Won the AdWords Trademark Battles Worldwide * Google’s Search Suggestions Don’t Violate Wisconsin Publicity Rights Law * Amazon’s Merchandising of Its Search Results Doesn’t Violate Trademark Law * Buying Keyword Ads on People’s Names Doesn’t Violate Their Publicity Rights * With Its Australian Court Victory, Google Moves Closer to Legitimizing Keyword Advertising Globally * Yet Another Ruling That Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Louisiana Pacific v. James Hardie * Another Google AdWords Advertiser Defeats Trademark Infringement Lawsuit * With Rosetta Stone Settlement, Google Gets Closer to Legitimizing Billions of AdWords Revenue * Google Defeats Trademark Challenge to Its AdWords Service * Newly Released Consumer Survey Indicates that Legal Concerns About Competitive Keyword Advertising Are Overblown

The post Court Rejects Initial Interest Confusion Claims for Competitive Keyword Ads–Regalo v. Aborder appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.