RealTechNews.com - Independent Tech

Saturday, February 05, 2005

Google Loses Trademark Case in France
A French court on Friday ruled against Google in a trademark infringement case brought by Louis Vuitton Malletier, in the latest legal setback to the search giant overseas. The Paris District Court has sanctioned Google and its French subsidiary from selling search-related advertisements against trademarks owned by the luxury fashion designer, which sued the search giant in early 2004. The court charged Google with trademark counterfeiting, unfair competition and misleading advertising. Google was ordered to pay $257,430 (200,000 euros).

The ruling comes on the heels of another French court order against Google, in a case brought by European chain Le Meridien Hotels and Resorts. In that lawsuit, the court said Google infringed on Le Meridien's trademarks by allowing the hotel chain's rivals to bid on keywords of its name and then appear prominently in those related search results.Both lawsuits have hinged on Google's signature keyword-advertising system, Adwords, which pairs text ads with related search results. For example, a Nike ad appears after a search for running shoes. Through the system, Google allows marketers to bid for such search-related keywords, including common branded and trademarked terms.

The negative rulings could hamper the company's advertising practices--at least in Western Europe, where the courts have been favorable to trademark owners. Google derives the lion's share of its revenue from online advertising.

Never thought I'd say this, but the French are good for something...
# Permalink Posted at 7:43 PM 7 comments Email this Link

Comments on this Item:

Le Meridien had a rock-solid case. The US dismissed the action without requiring Google to answer the complaint - based upon a minor procedural issue that most similar cases can traverse by a concurrent USPTO action.

The access to US courts has become uncertain for foreign-based issues.

We are losing credibility on the international business facilities front at the very same time that we must have the confidence of our trading partners to expand our market.

free traders my distal GI tract

# posted by Anonymous 11:39 PM

This is a double edged sword for the trademark holder.

On one hand you want to ensure that your trademark isn't being abused or used against you, BUT Google can turn around and refuse to produce any results that use your trademark in the search terms.

# posted by Anonymous 12:27 PM

Todd2, the response to your argument is that if Google stops handing out references to popular sites then people will stop using Google. See? It's a four-edged sword.

# posted by Bill 12:54 PM

If google starts applying non-mechanical preferences to search results, then they loose their common-carrier defense for copyright infringement. That means that unless they filter out every site that contains copyrighted material being distributed illegally, they /may/ be liable, which would open them up to an awful lot of lawsuits. I expect that they'll just keep doing what they're doing -- 200kEUR is pocket change to them, and I expect that they've got good enough lawyers to make a case for common carrier defenses being applicable in to trademarks, when the judgements start going up in value.

James Mastros -- theorbtwo -- james.mastros@biz.

# posted by Anonymous 4:54 PM

Two problems with what youre saying, James. The first is pretty much simple in that there are members of the United States Supreme who tend to look outside the law of the US for solutions when they need one. Having an iternational verdict go against Google, and expecially a French one, would give these judges the rationale for applying that decision here in the United States.

The second one goes back a little further to a near ancient case involving Prodigy, AOL, and a guy who sued them because a member posted a defamatory statement about him on their respective "bulletin boards." In that particular case, the courst held AOL blameless because AOL's policy was to respond to complaints about posts. Prodigy, on the other hand, was found liable because it was pro-active and screened it's messages before allowing them to be posted.

Applied to Google, its current policy is to specifically link related ads to specific queries. (Search for Prudential Insurance and, along with results for Pru, you'll get a plethora of sponsored ads for anything related to insruance companies. The basic theory behind the claim of disolution of trademark value.) If Google reverts to a provable random response, it loses the liability of intent, whether related ads show up or not.

# posted by Bill 7:12 PM

Bill,

Stop blabbing about the current right-wing-legal bitch & moan topic and THINK for a minute . . . how, exactly does a US Mark holder exercise his/her/its right to police their mark in another jurisdiction (Soverign Nation)?

You may have heard of these things - they are laws that nations agree upon as between themselves - they are called a TREATY.

Where marks are concerned, the US wrote and is a signatory to the TLT - and so are many other nations.

Where a conflict arises regarding a TREATY in the US, the standard, old U.S. District Courts hear the cases and apply US Substantive law - the treaty!

Sorry, the right-wing-legal-bugaboo-we-might-apply-some-other-nation's-laws to ourselves fails here. (OH, BTW, did you know that the US applies British Common Law in every state except one, where the Napoleonic Code rather than Brit common law controls?)

Check out http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/tlt/

# posted by Anonymous 10:09 PM

If you'd like to rant on about the politics of this decision, feel free to walk over to my blog and do so.

In the meantime, this decision, on its face, simply means that someone with a brain, unfortunately not an American judge in this case, has decided that Google's tactics do tend toward disolution of trademark, which, unless you adhere to an outlandishly mystical interpretation of what a trademark stands for, they do. This is just another in a series of non-sensical Google policies that we've covered here.

The conclusion, at this point, is that either Google doesn't realize that it's getting some very tainted advice as to how it should behave or else it is attempting to be underhanded without knowing how to do it properly. Ignorant or stupid. Not a great choice. If I were a stockholder, especially with 176 million shares unlocked and potentially coming up for sale on February 14th, I'd be worried.

# posted by Bill 9:18 AM

Post a Comment