European Court Of Justice Finds Google Not Guilty Of Trademark Infringement In Ad Sales... But Leaves Lots Of Loopholes
from the will-they-give-up-yet? dept
Various big luxury brands have been trying for years to get courts to say that Google is somehow liable for trademark infringement if it sells ads based on people doing searches on trademarked keywords. Most courts have rejected this argument -- but there was one in France that accepted it and sided with LVMH (owners of brands Louis Vuitton, Moet & Hennessey, among others). That case moved up to the European Court of Justice, which had already suggested that selling ads based on trademarked keywords shouldn't be considered infringing. I had thought, upon reading the BBC's coverage of the final decision, that the court had strongly agreed with Google by saying that it was not guilty of trademark infringement, but it seemed odd that LVMH seemed to be claiming victory in the quote in that article, saying: "the ruling clarified the rules of online advertising."Looking at other coverage of the ruling, it appears the BBC's explanation leaves out many of the important details. While it's true that the court found that Google was not guilty, it did say that Google needs to remove ads when companies complain and that national courts can set their own rules on this topic. It's not a complete win for either party, but it does seem to give more control to big brands to block perfectly legitimate advertising.
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: advertising, counterfeits, trademarks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's more than a loophole, it's basically an outright win for the brand owners who sued. And it's a complete perversion of what trademark is supposed to be about: consumer protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
im gonna just send 50000000 complaints fo all kinds
Capitalism is becoming bad ....very stupid and bad
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Imagine if someone searches on Google for "Chevy Venture Honda Pilot comparison." Now what if the Chevrolet's adword advertisement was a comparison between the Venture and the Pilot. Would that have to be pulled too?
Let's go beyond adwords. Let's assume that GM puts a video on YouTube comparing its cars to Honda. When you search for Honda that GM video/ad comes up first, should that also be removed if Honda complains?
This is a huge blow to free speech and it makes it more difficult for consumers to find factual information they might need before purchasing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]