Industry News | In Practice | The Bigger Picture | Digital Marketing | Your Business | Latest Research

Latest Articles

89% of consumers feel that new EU cookie directive is a positive step

9 out of 10 people feel that the new EU cookie directive is a positive step for consumers, according to the latest eCustomerServiceIndex (eCSI) results from eDigitalResearch and IMRG. By Derek Eccleston.

more

New cookies law lead-in period nearly up: What should businesses be doing?

The 12 month lead-in period for the new cookies law, which means businesses have to gain user permission before accessing personal information, is nearly up. Organisations must carry out their own assessments of how they use cookies and then tailor a solution to that use and their customers. The law demands business to be fully compliant by 26 May. By Kim Walker.

more

Making the most of the $43 billion mobile market

With the value of mobile vouchers set to exceed $43 billion globally by 2016 according to a recent study, how can organisations ensure that mobile vouchers work to their advantage? New Media Knowledge caught up with a leading mobile expert to learn more. By Chris Lee.

more

Related Articles

Google wins AdWords battle but not the war

Filed under: All Articles > Industry News
Tags:
By: NMK Created on: May 11th, 2010
Bookmark this article with: Delicious Digg StumbleUpon

A summary of the recent European Court of Justice judgment on whether Google’s AdWords service constitutes trade mark infringement and the scope of Google’s obligations as an online referencing service provider to prevent unlawful use of its AdWords service. By Oran Arif.

By Oran Arif

The long awaited European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision as to whether Google’s AdWords service constitutes trade mark infringement has been reached.

In 2005 LVMH owner of luxury brand Louis Vuitton successfully sued Google in France for trade mark infringement and was awarded £278,000 in damages. The Paris Tribunal of First Instance agreed with LVMH’s arguments that Google should be held accountable for damage caused to its brand by third parties which purchased the Louis Vuitton trade marks as keywords under Google’s AdWords service and used them to trigger advertisements for counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods.

Google appealed the decision all the way to the highest court in France, the French Court of Cassation, which in 2009 referred the question of whether Google’s provision of the AdWords service itself constitutes trade mark infringement, to the ECJ.

Seven years after LVMH first issued its claim against Google the ECJ has found in Google’s favour stating that it has not infringed European trade mark law by “allowing advertisers to purchase key words corresponding to their competitors’ trade marks”.

One thing that is banned is advertisers using another brand name in such a way which confuses the consumers as to the origin of the products.

In relation to Google’s liability in such instances the ECJ stated that if Google has knowledge of the unlawful nature of the adverts triggered and fails to act expeditiously to remove or disable access to those concerned it may be held liable.

The case will now revert back to the French Court of Cassation for the judges there to decide whether on the current facts Google can be said to have had the required knowledge and control over the content of the advertisements LVMH complained of to hold Google liable for contributing to the infringement of its trade marks.

Briffa Comment

The ECJ judgment has clarified that Google’s AdWords service does not in itself constitute trade mark infringement however has also provided some useful guidance as to the scope of permitted use of the keywords by advertisers and Google’s obligations to prevent unlawful use of its AdWords service.

Advertisers are not permitted to use Google’s AdWords service in such way as to confuse users of the search engine as to the origin of the goods and services they advertise.

With regard to Google’s liability the ECJ has added that whether or not a ‘referencing service provider’ such as Google in this case can be held liable will be determined on a case by case basis. If such service provider has a neutral role which is purely technical, automatic and passive, pointing to a lack of knowledge or control of data concerned, (in this case the content of the adverts triggered by the AdWords) then the referencing service provider will not be held liable.

In light of the ECJ’s guidance it is therefore important that brand owners inform Google and other search engine providers of adverts triggered by their trade marks which they believe are damaging their brands and business as well as the third parties directly responsible for the content of such advertisements.

About the author

Oran Arif is a paralegal at Briffa, an award winning firm of lawyers based in London, specialising in the business and law concerning a wide variety of industry sectors and in particular those who value their intangible assets – their intellectual property – in the business of design, technology, entertainment, software development, publishing and Internet.

Comments

You must be logged in to comment.

Log into NMK

Register

Lost Password?

Newsletter


For the latest news from NMK enter your email address and click subscribe: