EU Court Of Justice Says Selling Ads On Trademarked Keywords Is Not Trademark Infringement
from the good-news dept
It seems like it should be common sense that Google isn't violating any trademark laws because some of its customers buy ads using keywords from other's trademarks. Trademark is about consumer protection -- keeping people from getting confused and buying one product believing it's made by someone else. It's only a recent phenomenon that trademark holders have tried to stretch and extend trademark to mean they get to control all uses of it and shut down any use they don't like. But having ads for competing products show up when someone's looking for a brand seems like perfectly reasonable competition. Still, luxury brands, such as LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessey), Tiffany, L'Oreal and others keep bringing lawsuits. LVMH won a case against Google in France, but that case moved up to the European Court of Justice, and senior judge there has now stepped in and said that selling ads shouldn't be trademark infringement, though a full decision is still a few months (at least) away. There's also an odd caveat: "Google could be held liable if brand owners could show that Google's ads had damaged their trademarks." What, exactly, does that mean? I'm guessing it's something similar to the already troubling "dilution" standard used in the US, but it seems impossibly vague and open to interpretation (and countless lawsuits).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, europe, trademarks
Companies: google, lvmh
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
An analogy
People go there to buy food.
Someone else spots this and builds a competing food shop in the same part of town.
M&S object, saying "they came here looking for M&S and now you're trying to lure away our customers".
Isn't that what L'Oreal are basically saying when someone advertises competing products next to the L'Oreal keyword ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the shift hits the fan.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does consumers really know how sponsored links work?
Some of the articles that has been posted about the latest "opinion" - wich is not a "verdict", mentions that, and I quote "Part of the court’s reasoning is that modern consumers are sophisticated enough to understand how ’sponsored links’ work".
This is, in my opinion, plain rubbish! Where do they get this from. Tell them to document this point.
In some segments (especially the older segments) more than 50% of the users doesn’t now the difference between sponsored links and organic results.
I’d like to see some more good reasons than this. Otherwise this will be disputed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The big fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the big fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the big fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is the Justice?
Is this not a criminal matter?.......Misleading the public into believing they are someone whom they're not.
This particular organisation are bounded to the "Data Protection Act".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]