Why Google Shouldn't Be Liable For Suggesting Trademarked Terms In AdWords
from the it's-not-actual-use-in-commerce dept
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.Indeed. Yet another reason for why the Second Circuit's ruling is so troubling.
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.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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 ]
Case Link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Case Link
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mark pepsi in greek means digestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mark pepsi in greek means digestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademark infringement can create mail fraud
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 ]