UK Court Recognizes That Keyword Advertising Isn't A Trademark Violation
from the mr-spicy-mr-spicy-mr-spicy dept
While US courts have gotten much better lately at realizing that keyword advertising is not, by itself a violation of trademark law, judges in some other countries have had trouble recognizing the same thing. France, in particular, seems to have judges who consistently are confused over the matter. Remember, the purpose of trademark law is not to give total control over the mark to the holder, but to prevent consumer confusion. It's so they're not tricked into buying Bob's Cola thinking that it's Coca Cola. If someone does a search on a trademarked term, and it shows a variety of ads, including from competitors to the holder of the trademark, that's not a violation of trademark -- it's just competition. It certainly isn't trademark infringement on the part of the search engine, who is merely hosting the ad. If anything, it might be trademark infringement on the part of the advertiser, but only if the ad itself is somehow designed to confuse the consumer.Thankfully, it looks like the High Court in the UK has recognized the issues at play and has come out with a ruling more like the American courts than the French courts, noting that there is no trademark violation for search engines in these cases. This specific case involved Yahoo, who was getting sued by someone who owned a trademark on "Mr Spicy." He claimed that competitor's ads were showing up when someone searched on "Mr Spicy." That was true, but it wasn't even because anyone had set up keywords on "Mr. Spicy." They had merely set up keywords on "spicy," which still showed up on a search for "Mr Spicy." Of course, even if it had been on "Mr. Spicy" it wouldn't have mattered much, since it still wasn't Yahoo's issue. Also, the court seems to recognize that since the ads themselves don't even refer to Mr Spicy, it's hard to see how there's any loss or confusion that would violate the trademark. Hopefully other courts around the world will start employing similar logic as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: keyword advertising, trademarks, uk
Companies: yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Play
This attitude is "fair play" as regards of advertising on somebody else's brand whose efforts and marketing budget are diluted by competitors who "jump on the train" without adding value to their own brand and products.
Ariel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US laws don't apply in Europe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Of course, even if it had been on "Mr. Spicy" it wouldn't have mattered much, since it still wasn't Yahoo's issue."
Your comment sounds a little loose...
It is considered a major concern when a "word" trade mark appears in the displayed advertisement (sponsor text ad result) and is substantially identical or deceptively similar to the registered "word" trade mark in relation to goods and/or services of the same description as, or closely related to, the goods and/or services for which the companies trade mark is registered.
Food for thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]