France: No Google Text Ads For Trademarked Words

ASN writes "Reuters reports that a French court barred Google from providing text ads with search results for trademarked terms, except those from the trademark owner (in this case, 'Bourse des vols,' potentially -- 'Microsoft,' 'Scientology' even 'Linux'). According to Reuters, 'If it was upheld on appeal and validated in other countries the decision could force the search services to pre-screen search terms for trademarks before letting advertisers use them.' Google was fined 75,000 euros for the practice, and would have to pay 1,500 euro for each further infraction while appeal is underway (which makes one wonder if Google is paying for this)."

Comments

Insanity!

[RickHunter]

Trademarks? WHAT trademarks? This is ludicrous. If someone types in Ford, how is Google supposed to know if they're searching for Ford Motors, Gerald Ford, or informating on fording rivers? If I type in Windows, do they have to screen all ads not by Microsoft - even those for window cleaners?

Insanity. Trademark laws were a good idea, but they're now even more insane than copyright laws. The courts seem to have forgotten that trademarks have a limited scope based on area of business and geographical area.

Re:Insanity!

[snarkh]

The ads mentioned are the ads Google itself places on its page. They are the not-so-little text links you see above the search results.

The idea is that Google should not allow other interested parties to use copyrighted expressions. E.g., Ford Motors can by a text link for Toyota Corolla and direct them to Ford Focus.

Whether it makes sense, I am not quite sure, but it is not a clearly ridiculous idea

Re:Insanity!

[Florian Weimer]

How do you determine who the trademark holder(s) are when I type in Ford?

In short, you don't. You simply ask the clients to whome you sell ads to indemnify you for all damages caused by their selection of search keywords. Or you charge all clients a little more to compensate for the risk.

Re:Insanity!

[sql*kitten]

If someone types in Ford, how is Google supposed to know if they're searching for Ford Motors, Gerald Ford, or informating on fording rivers

Well, that's the French government for you - they're always passing laws regulating business without thinking through the consequences. For example, they thought limiting the work week to 35 hours would force more jobs to be created. And it would - if all workers were interchangeable. Unfortunately, in the real would (which no French government official has ever worked in) they're not. Or the laws that make it very difficult to fire a worker - they thought that would cut unemployment too. Only they didn't realize that part of the risk of hiring a worker is that he is incompetent or lazy - by making it so difficult to fire, they magnified that risk, and so companies were reluctant to hire!

Basically, until the French government keeps its bungling hands out of regulating things it doesn't understand, French unemployment will never drop into the single digits, and their economy will never pull out of recession.

Re:Insanity!

[ScrewMaster]

No, they know exactly what they're doing. And sabotaging major American corporations is just considered good politics in Europe nowadays. Of course, the fact that they're trying to force French law on a business based in a foreign country is the real crux of the matter. Google should tell the to have a real nice day, and turn the whole thing over to the State Department. If they want to make this into an international pissing contest, fine. Hey, if the French don't like Google, let them pull a China on themselves and block Google's IP. Then we'll see just how long this foolishness lasts.

Screw them.

[grub]

Google should dump Google.fr and continue doing what they're doing. That'll leave the French courts with no one to sue nationally and will be another nail in the coffin for French xenophobia.

Which Trademark Owner?

[rmohr02]

A trademark is an exclusive right to use a name, phrase or logo with regards to a specific market. It is not entirely impossible for two different companies to have the same trademark--remember the nissan.com debacle? The original owner of the nissan.com site (not the car manufacturer) had a trademark on the name "Nissan" and got there first. Another (more prominent) company with a trademark on "Nissan" sued to get the domain and won. However, the original owner still runs a business with the name "Nissan".

Re:Which Trademark Owner?

[kfg]

More than that, it's perfectly legitimate for someone who is not the trademark holder to us that trademark in their advertising.

"Well sell cars from a particular manufacturer from a particular country, but we can't tell you which of either."

Please come in and buy one."

This isn't about protecting trademarks, this is about simply being able to advertise what you sell. Advertising that I sell Serta mattresses doesn't in any way delute the trademark.

KFG

This is about AdWords, not search results

[Animats]

This isn't about Google's search results. This is about AdWords, which is specifically advertising.

France regulates advertising quite differently from other expression. TV commercials require advance approval. Sexy ads are fine. (Although, since 2001, sexual domination and violence in ads has been restricted.) But there are many other restrictions. If an advertiser claims their product is "better", they have to be able to prove it in court or face criminal penalties. Here's the official FAQ on advertising in France.

Under US law, AdWords are clearly "commercial speech" when they lead to a product, The FTC could regulate them.

Google can live with this; they just need to require AdWords purchasers to certify that they're not infringing a trademark.

Re:"A, an, the?"

[Kenja]

"That's insane."

No, its French.

Re:Did you read the article before yelling insult

[Entrope]

Did you apply your brain before whining about the insult?

Suppose Company A owns and registers a trademark on their product named MegaSuperItem. If company B runs an advertisement saying "ImprovedNiftyItem -- twice as good as MegaSuperItem," who is traditionally at fault? I believe that Company B should be held liable, not the media that published the advertisement.

There is also, as many other people have commented, the fact that trademarks pertain to a specific market or field. The Internet encompasses all those fields recognized by trademark offices and many more. Owning a trademark does not give you exclusive rights to the word -- except as it relates to marketing or selling products or services.

Why should Google be responsible for doing trademark research and forming a legal opinion on whether every AdWord they run may infringe someone's copyright? That burden goes far beyond what is reasonable for any company to bear.

Cutting of your nose to spite your face

[thinmac]

This seems like a bad idea, at least in some cases, for the trademark holder. There are many cases where you *want* other companies to have access to your trademarks for advertising purposes.

As an example, I recently bought a Kawasaki motorcycle. It's a great bike, but there are some extra things I want, and so I went to google and searched for Kawasaki aftermarket parts. Now, every one of the advertisers was using the Kawasaki name, but without a healthy aftermarket presence, Kawasaki would sell a heck of a lot less of their product -- people are a whole lot more willing to buy a motorcycle if they know they can get performance parts for the bike without doing a whole lot of digging.

Even more simply, what if someone is using their name to say that their company is retailing the products of the trademark holder? Then they'd be cutting into their own visibility in the market place, and lowering their own sales.

It seems to me that this is not the most intellegent move on the part of the trademark holder. If you protect your trademark so passionately that you hurt your own product sales, what the hell was the trademark for in the first place?

Sue those who placed the ad, not the media

[rollingcalf]

If a company has a problem with another company using their trademark for advertising, they should confront the company who bought the ad, not the media who carried it. Requiring Google to proactively compare every word against trademarks is ridiculous, and is a bad precedent that could be extended to cripple other forms of media.