Saunders Archery Company owns the famous WRIST-ROCKET trademark for
slingshots. For almost half a century, consumers have recognized Saunders
Archery Company’s WRIST-ROCKET®-brand slingshots for their high quality and
good value. Saunders Archery Company also owns the United States trademark
registration for WRIST-ROCKET, Reg. 792,882, issued in 1965. Only
authorized slingshots from Saunders Archery Company may lawfully bear the
WRIST-ROCKET trademark.

We recently became aware of several sellers using our WRIST-ROCKET
trademark without authorization and in a manner that creates confusion, an
infringement of Saunders Archery Company’s rights under Federal trademark
law. This includes explicit use of the WRIST-
ROCKET trademark, distinctive use of the words “wrist” and “rocket” in
proximity, and use of the word “rocket” in a manner designed to cause
search engines to display listings for non-WRIST-ROCKET®-brand slingshots.

By taking advantage of text-idexed search engine, sellers are improperly
using the goodwill associated with Saunders Archery Company’s well-known
WRIST-ROCKET trademark to sell competing products. Obviously, including the
word “rocket” in the title or description when offering a slingshot results
in that appearing search for “wrist rocket slingshot.” We are requesting
that you immediately terminate the improper use of the WRIST-ROCKET mark or
the use “wrist” and “rocket” in such a manner as to trade on our goodwill.

The situation is quite analogous to using a competitor’s trademark in your
website meta tags, conduct that United States courts have deemed trademark
infringement. Cases such as Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast
Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999), Eli Lilly & Co. v.
Natural Answers, Inc., 86 F.Supp.2d 834 (S.D. Ind. 2000), and SNA, Inc. v.
Array, 51 F.Supp.2d 554 (E/D. Pa. 1999) make it clear that luring
prospective purchasers to a website or auction listing by intentionally
using a competitor’s mark to attract search engines is a form of trademark
infringement. Should you have any additional questions, we suggest that you
discuss the matter with an intellectual property attorney who specializes
in trademark law.

Sincerely,
Chuck Saunders – DCV
Saunders Archery

I’m not the seller, nor am I affiliated with the seller. Please follow the link and contact them directly. They provide a number of contact methods at the bottom of the page linked above.

Thanks,
Anton Olsen

Saunders Archery Company owns the famous WRIST-ROCKET trademark for
slingshots. For almost half a century, consumers have recognized Saunders
Archery Company’s WRIST-ROCKET®-brand slingshots for their high quality and
good value. Saunders Archery Company also owns the United States trademark
registration for WRIST-ROCKET, Reg. 792,882, issued in 1965. Only
authorized slingshots from Saunders Archery Company may lawfully bear the
WRIST-ROCKET trademark.

We recently became aware of several sellers using our WRIST-ROCKET
trademark without authorization and in a manner that creates confusion, an
infringement of Saunders Archery Company’s rights under Federal trademark
law. This includes explicit use of the WRIST-
ROCKET trademark, distinctive use of the words “wrist” and “rocket” in
proximity, and use of the word “rocket” in a manner designed to cause
search engines to display listings for non-WRIST-ROCKET®-brand slingshots.

By taking advantage of text-idexed search engine, sellers are improperly
using the goodwill associated with Saunders Archery Company’s well-known
WRIST-ROCKET trademark to sell competing products. Obviously, including the
word “rocket” in the title or description when offering a slingshot results
in that appearing search for “wrist rocket slingshot.” We are requesting
that you immediately terminate the improper use of the WRIST-ROCKET mark or
the use “wrist” and “rocket” in such a manner as to trade on our goodwill.

The situation is quite analogous to using a competitor’s trademark in your
website meta tags, conduct that United States courts have deemed trademark
infringement. Cases such as Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast
Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999), Eli Lilly & Co. v.
Natural Answers, Inc., 86 F.Supp.2d 834 (S.D. Ind. 2000), and SNA, Inc. v.
Array, 51 F.Supp.2d 554 (E/D. Pa. 1999) make it clear that luring
prospective purchasers to a website or auction listing by intentionally
using a competitor’s mark to attract search engines is a form of trademark
infringement. Should you have any additional questions, we suggest that you
discuss the matter with an intellectual property attorney who specializes
in trademark law.

Sincerely,
Chuck Saunders – DCV
Saunders Archery