2012), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which ruled that when software merely acts as a "conduit" for providing services over the internet, and does not have an independent value per se, it does not constitute a "good" being "sold or transported in commerce" for the purposes of establishing whether or not a trademark for "computer software" has been "abandoned" under 15 U.S.C.
This had implications for trademark holders who held "computer software"-related intellectual property and sold goods over the internet.
In 2001, Lens.com had attempted to register the trademark LENS in connection with "retail store services featuring contact eyewear products rendered via a global computer network.
[1] Applying these principles to the case at hand, the Court found that Lens.com's software was "merely the conduit" for its online retail sales services, and was "inextricably intertwined" with it.
[6] Finally, the Court did not accede to Lens.com's second avenue of argument, that the TTAB had erroneously relied on only part of Lens.com's application file in making its decision.
Based on the record of the decision below, the Court found that the TTAB had properly considered the entire application file.
Approximately one year following this decision, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided another controversy between 1-800 Contacts and Lens.com, this time over the latter's use of its competitor's trademark in Google adwords as a means of redirecting customers to its own website.
In August 2016, the Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint against 1-800 Contacts alleging, among other things, that its search advertising trademark enforcement practices have unreasonably restrained competition in violation of the FTC Act.