This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on 1-800 Contacts is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
 |
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. (May 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. |
| Type | Privately Held |
|---|---|
| Founded | 1995 |
| Headquarters | Draper, Utah |
| Key people | Jonathan C. Coon, CEO Brian Bethers, President Kevin McCallum, CMO Rob Hunter, CFO Joe Zeidner General Counsel |
| Industry | Contact Lens Retail |
| Products | Contact lenses |
| Revenue | $237,950,0001 |
| Operating income | $5,734,0001 |
| Net income | ($2,605,000)1 |
| Employees | 680 (as of August 12, 2007)1 |
| Parent | Fenway Partners |
| Website | www.1800contacts.com |
1-800 Contacts is a privately held company based in Draper, Utah that sells various brands of contact lenses, including Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, CIBA Vision, Bausch & Lomb and CooperVision. The company's last publicly reported net sales, in the 2006 fiscal year, were US$247 million.2
First incorporated in February 1995, the company sued advertising software developer WhenU in 2002 and entered a long-term agreement with Wal-Mart in 2008.
Contents |
Origin
1-800 Contacts was founded in 1995 by Jonathan C. Coon and John F. Nichols, and first incorporated in February that year. As the company's 2005 10-K report states, "Mr. Nichols is a certified optician in the State of California and was the owner of the Discount Lens Club from 1991 until February 1995. Mr. Nichols worked with Bausch & Lomb as a Senior Sales Representative from 1989 to 1991."1
Alliance with Wal-Mart
In January 2008, 1-800 Contacts entered a long-term agreement with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to align their contact lens businesses.
Pop-up Ad lawsuit
1-800 contacts sued WhenU over pop-up advertisments in 2002.3 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 injunction, 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
References
- ^ a b c d e 2005 10-K Report, accessed October 13, 2006
- ^ 1-800 Contacts. "company website".
- ^ a b Christopher Saunders (2002-10-14). "U-Haul, 1-800 Contacts Join Anti-Pop-Up Bandwagon", ClickZ News, Incisive Interactive Marketing LLC.
- ^ 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 (2004-01-05). "Pop-up seller loses round in court", CNET News.com.
- ^ 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.
External links
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 26 December 2008, at 01:03.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "1-800 Contacts".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.