1-800 Contacts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| 1-800 CONTACTS | |
| Slogan | The World's Largest Contacts Lens Store. |
|---|---|
| Type | Public (NASDAQ: CTAC) |
| Founded | 1995 |
| Headquarters | Draper, Utah |
| Key people | Johnathan Coon, CEO Brian Bethers, President and CFO |
| Industry | Eye care |
| Products | Contact lenses |
| Revenue | $237,950,000[1] |
| Operating income | $5,734,000[1] |
| Net income | ($2,605,000)[1] |
| Employees | 1,135 (as of December 31, 2005)[1] |
| Website | www.1800contacts.com |
1-800 CONTACTS (NASDAQ: CTAC) is a company based in Draper, Utah that sells most popular brands of contact lenses, including Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, CIBA Vision, Bausch & Lomb and CooperVision. The company's net sales in the 2005 fiscal year were $237,950,000, up from $211,678,000 in 2004 and $187,303,000 in 2003.[1][2]
Contents |
[edit] Pop-up Ad lawsuit
It sued WhenU over pop-up advertisments.[3]
In the suit against WhenU, which also named Vision Direct as a co-defendant[4], 1-800 Contacts alleged that the advertisements provided by WhenU, which advertised competitors of 1-800 Contacts (such as Vision Direct) when people viewed the company's web site, as "inherently deceptive" and one that "misleads users into falsely believing the pop-up advertisements supplied by WhenU.com are in actuality advertisements authorized by and originating with the underlying Web site".[3]
In December 2003 Judge Deborah Batts of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injuction, barring WhenU from delivering the advertisements to some web surfers, on the grounds that it constituted trademark infringement violating the Lanham Act.[5]
However, WhenU appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that WhenU's actions did not amount to the "use" that the Lanham Act requires in order to constitute trademark infringement. The appeal court reversed the preliminary injunction and ordered the dismissal of all claims made by 1-800 Contacts that were based upon trademark infringement, leaving the claims based upon unfair competition and copyright infringement.[6] The District court had already found that 1-800 Contacts was unlikely to prevail in its copyright infringement claims, finding that "the conduct neither violated [the] plaintiff's right to display its copyrighted website, nor its right to create derivative works therefrom".[7]
The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticised the case, stating that it was "not to help [people] fight off adware and spyware" but was rather intended to allow companies "to gain control over [a computer's] desktop", where the legal principles being employed "would create a precedent that would enable trademark owners to dictate what could be open on your desktop when you visit their websites". At the time of the appeal it filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Appeals Court to limit the reach of the "initial interest confusion" doctrine that had been applied by the District Court.[8]
[edit] Notes
- ^ a b c d e 2005 10-K Report, accessed October 13, 2006
- ^ Steven Oberbeck and Carey Hamilton. "1-800 Contacts pitches new lens", The Salt Lake Tribune, 2006-09-10.
- ^ a b Christopher Saunders. "U-Haul, 1-800 Contacts Join Anti-Pop-Up Bandwagon", ClickZ News, Incisive Interactive Marketing LLC, 2002-10-14.
- ^ 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.Com and Vision Direct, Inc. 309 F.Supp.2d 467 (S.D.N.Y., 2003-12-22), reversed in part and remanded, — F.3d — 2d. Cir., 2005-06-27
- ^ Stefanie Olsen. "Pop-up seller loses round in court", CNET News.com, 2004-01-05.
- ^ Chloe Hecht (2005-09-25). Court Sees Clearly Now: "Use" in 1 800-Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc. and Vision Direct, Inc.. Chilling Effects.
- ^ Martin H. Samson. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.Com and Vision Direct, Inc.. Phillips Nizer LLP Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions.
- ^ 1-800 Contacts v. WhenU. Electronic Frontier Foundation.
[edit] References
- Michelle Boyles. "Double Trouble on Fees: O.D.s feel the squeeze as both professional and materials fees trend downward.", 25TH Annual Contact Lens Report, Review of Optometry OnLine, 2001-04-15. — a report of 1-800 Contacts being sued by the Texas Optometry Board for violating the Texas Optometric Act, and claims that the company had "launched a campaign against optometry in New Mexico, Texas, and other states"
