Moore's Law: Dead Again, According To The Press

Why Google Shouldn't Be Liable For Suggesting Trademarked Terms In AdWords

from the it's-not-actual-use-in-commerce dept

Tue, Apr 14th 2009 12:16am — Mike Masnick

Canadian lawyer David Canton (who I recently had the pleasure of meeting) has written up an excellent analysis why the recent ruling about Google's potential liability for suggesting trademarked keywords doesn't make much sense. His key point is a good one:

Perhaps Google did suggest a competitor's mark -- but trade-mark infringement only occurs when there is "use" in conjunction with similar products or services. How is Google supposed to know whether my use will infringe, or be perfectly lawful? A ruling that Google can never suggest keywords that happen to be trade-marked does not make sense to me.

For example, the word "Canton" has been trade-marked for various things by various companies in the U.S. and Canada, including speakers, liqueur, and soup. So if I wanted "David Canton" as a keyword, why would it be a problem for Google to suggest "Canton" as a possible keyword? Surely it's my responsibility to use that keyword for my own purposes to promote my legal services -- and not use it to sell my own line of speakers, liqueur or soup.

Google should have a role to play if I do that -- but the role should be to forward complaints or put the complainant in touch with me -- not to be liable itself for my infringement.

Indeed. Yet another reason for why the Second Circuit's ruling is so troubling.

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: adwords, liability, trademark
Companies: google

8 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2009 @ 7:09am

Indeed. Yet another reason for why the Second Circuit's ruling is so troubling.

It was noted before, and it is worth noting again. One is well advised to read a judicial decision before opining about "why it is so troubling". The decision can be found at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/do c/06-4881-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a 117af23ee/1/hilite/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mark, 14 Apr 2009 @ 8:27am
  
  Case Link
  AC's link is down so here is another case link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13927222/Rescuecom-v-Google-040309
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2009 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Case Link
    I am a bit surprised that the link directly to the 2nd Circuit website is not working.
    
    Of course, and as you note, the decision was not on the merits, but on a procedural matter. Unfortunately, this important distinction is passed by as bloggers proclaim "the sky is falling".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 14 Apr 2009 @ 8:24am

This is why trademark law also looks at a mark's uniqueness. "Canton" is not a very unique mark, but marks such Pepsi, Hertz, and intel are. It's a fact based question, and the 2nd Circuit's decision is on a motion to dismiss not a motion for summary judgment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2009 @ 12:30pm

Assuming t is accurate to say "...trade-mark infringement only occurs when there is "use" in conjunction with similar products or services" then you really need to consider why Google makes a suggestion about the use of a particular keyword - if the suggestion is inspired by the knowledge of a related product or service then things are going to get grey quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
takis, 25 Apr 2009 @ 7:13pm

mark pepsi in greek means digestion
why should i not be able to use it? think about that for a sec
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mark, 3 May 2009 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re: mark pepsi in greek means digestion
  That may be true... and if you were using it in Greece, a Greek community, or any other number of relevant places that would be a great argument.... but it is still a fact based argument. In this particular case, however, we would be looking to see if Google was recommending a greek digestive aid or a cola -- based off the keyword "Pepsi" -- in the case of a Greek digestive aid, Google should probably win because it will be tough to prove confusion(although even that is questionalbe as I don't know how much market saturation Pepsi Cola has in Greece). The law (at least as written -- if not always applied) has more than enough pragmatism built in to handle word use in multiple languages -- but the point is, such arguments are almost always going to be fact based -- not law based.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
George Galustian, 9 Feb 2010 @ 7:22am

Trademark infringement can create mail fraud
Company A has a trade mark that is in area a with an address
A : PO BOX 12345
Google advertises A AS B through its several different techniques
Company B Receives all the inquiries that are meant for company A
Google will be receiving funds to do this legally this will be classified as
aiding and betting A federal Crime Google as well as the company B will be liable for mail theft the intention of weather the company made money from this action or not will be decided by a Federal judge
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/mail-fraud.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]