Google wins partial victory in net ads battle

 

Gallery

By Stuart Turton

Posted on 22 Sep 2009 at 17:05

Google has won a partial victory in its fight with luxury goods maker LVMH over the use of trademarks in internet advertising.

The case centers on whether Google has the right to sell brand names for internet search advertising - a money-spinner for the company.

Companies such as shoe stores, for example, pay Google so their name appears alongside internet search results for a brand of designer shoes they sell.

LVMH's Louis Vuitton fashion brand and others have been fighting such advertising after makers of imitation products piggybacked on those brands in online searches to attract customers.

The French courts last year referred the case to the EU tribunal, seeking guidance on whether Google's use of keywords contravened companies' rights under EU trade mark laws.

Google has not infringed trade mark rights by allowing advertisers to buy keywords corresponding to registered trade marks

But the European Court of Justice claims Advocate General Poiares Maduro "considers that Google has not infringed trade mark rights by allowing advertisers to buy keywords corresponding to registered trade marks."

"When selecting keywords, there is thus no product or service sold to the general public. Such a use cannot therefore be considered as being a use made in relation to goods or services covered by the trade marks," he says.

Google may be liable if it features content that involves trademark infringement, the adviser says. But trademark owners would have to point to specific instances "giving rise to Google's liability in the context of illegal damage to their trade marks," the court statement adds.

The search giant claims it is awaiting the decision of the court, reiterating that selecting a keyword to trigger the display of an ad did not amount to trademark infringement.

The Luxembourg-based court follows the opinion of its advocates general in a majority of cases. The judges are beginning their deliberations in this case and will give judgment at a later date, the court statement said.