Slashdot Mirror
Google Ruled a Trademark Infringer
Stephan writes "Google lost a trademark-infringement case in France.
News.com is reporting that a Paris District Court ruled
yesterday against Google in a
lawsuit filed by high-end fashion designer Louis Vuitton. The company
is suing Google for allowing its competitors to buy targeted ads on the
search engine's search results pages that use or are associated with the Vuitton
trademark. The court charged Google with trademark counterfeiting, unfair
competition and misleading advertising. Google was ordered to pay $257,430
(200,000 euros). Google is facing
similar lawsuits in different countries. In the United States, the company
recently
won a favorable ruling in a similar case brought by GEICO, the car insurance
company."
Could somebody tell me why this is diffrent than on comericals when say Subway uses The whatever-selects. McDonalds own that. Or then McDonalds compairs to Burger Kings wooper? I3 onion rings
Trademark counterfeiting? I really don't see this as being the case. Google is simply a tool by which various links are collected and set out in a presentable manner. Instead of shooting the messenger (Google), it seems to me that a more fair ruling would be to go after the counterfeitters themselves.
Unfair competition? I thought France had a relatively free market? And what exactly *is* "unfair competition" anyway? This aspect of the ruling seems as though it's set out to protect French business interests more than anything else.
Misleading advertising? Once again, it's the advertisers doing the misleading, not Google.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
And, just to make things clear, in the 1980s, the US had tremendously favorable relations with Iraq.
--- What
So the french government is now dictating what results a search engine can produce? If someone is injecting a query into my system, I would expect that I could return whatever information I want, unless the information in and of itself was illegal. For example when I click "similar pages" link at google for amazon.com and I get an overstock.com link is that illegal? Aren't I free to make whatever associations I want, possibly with the exception of when implying a false relationship? Google ads are marked as such even though many people can't tell the difference - there clearly is no direct relationship between the search query and the ads. Even so, who is to say that by default a search engine's results imply a particular relationship to the search terms?
It is not the fault of the technology, but users that are just plain confused. This ruling will look incredibly dumb in a generation or two when people are generally more saavy.
Google could remove ads + indexed pages. Those who sue Google are not worth it to be found ;)
Actually, according to the article, it didn't pass muster in the US.
In short, I fail to see how Google selling Louis Vuitton adwords to LV's competitors is any different than State Farm putting up billboards across the street from Geico offices or Viagra buying an ad on the page after a Cialis article in Men's magazine. It's nothing more than good business sense. It isn't TM infringement.
Here, I have to disagree. Putting up billboards across the street is not the same thing. This is more like putting a phone tap on the line, and setting it up so that each time someone calls Geico, they get an intercept telling them how wonderful State Farm is.
The real question in my mind is whether, if this ruling holds up pretty broadly, the Google adwords (tm) model will suffer. How many ads are for competitors, versus how many just for a generic term like "car insurance"?
In the end, if I were Geico or Louis Vuitton, I think I'd be pretty upset too.
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
when google takes them out of their search results. After all why risk another lawsuit when someone else will gladly take those hits.
--Gentoo Baby!
Thats funny, because last time I bought a Coke prosuct a coupon for Pepsi spit out with my receipt. Happens with a lot of products. Sounds the same as the BS with google and France... Besides.... its FRANCE! What elese would you expect!?
what I wonder is however, if someone shows a pre-recorded television program from the USA that includes comparative advertising that would be illegal in another country, could they then sue coke? of course not...
if google had no servers/place of buisness in france, would they liable fcr these practices under french law?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
WalMart is notorious for this, but they only took an existing practice and expanded on it ...
Same with beer companies paying extra to have their brand placed more conveniently, or with more linear feet of exposure.
Tobacco companies pay your local store hundreds of dollars every month so that their package is right behind the cashier, and their competitors' is less visible.
Nobody has a right to be protected from competitors ads if they are not lies.
That is copyright infringment no matter what way you look at it.
Well, actually is it trademark infringement depending on how you look at it. I wouldn't say this case is clear cut. I'm sure you've seen many commercials on television that make direct comparisons. Recently, I've seen a commercial that compares Liquid Plumber and Drano. I can't remember who ran the commercial but the advertisers mention both products by name. And advertisements of this nature have gone on for decades.
Sometimes you might be shopping and you'll see a product that says "Compare to Brand X". This isn't trademark infringement. A trademark does not give you exclusive use of a term, it simply prevents others from using your trade likeness to sell their product.
If I had a shipping company called SpedEx, I'd probably be found in violated of FedEx's trademark. But if I had a shipping company called DHL, I could certainly say that I provided an alternative to FedEx. Recall the DHL commercial where the UPS and the FedEx trucks are sitting opposite each other at a train crossing as a train full of DHL trucks sped by.
Further, wouldn't it be dangerous if trademark law made it "illegal" for databases (of which Google is) to connect like entities. If you have a large amount of data, is it wrong to connect like brands so that one can understand their relationship. Because they certainly have a relationship.
If this case were to permeate international trademark law, it would overturn decades of precedent. This type of thing happens all the time. Just yesterday, I purchased "Lysol Toilet Bowl Cleaner". Upon leaving the checkout, I recieved a coupon for $1 off "The Works Bowl Cleaner". Clearly, "The Works" is paying for a targeted advertisement for me to recieve a coupon when I purchase a competing product.
Would it be okay if a TV station let an advertiser infringe upon a trademark?
If they knowingly did so, then it might be a problem. But can a TV station be held responsible for every commercial? Station traffic managers aren't trademark attorneys. They schedule commercials. The ultimate responsibility should lie with the advertiser. It is the advertiser's message, not the TV station. If I rented you a PA system and you somehow broke some sort of law (say copyright law, by reading a copyright book outloud), should I be held responsible because I provided the means or the forum for you to break the law? I don't think so. Should the ISP be help responsible when you perform something illegal with your connection? I hope not, because then they'll watch everything you do.
I suspect that in the end, this type of advertising will be considered legal and legitimate.
You said it man. Nobody f#%ks with the Jesus.
Actually I think you're wrong: in France, comparing your product with another (like "Coke sux" in a Pepsi ad) is allowed but has NEVER been used (until recently when the new phone companies said the main phone operator was too f***ing expensive). I think it's more a cultural problem than a legal one: America has a long history of freedom of competition and capitalism, when European companies are scared of each other.
Freedom of competition has little to do with this.
It's the idea of searching for a trademark, and getting someone elses advertisement. Someone is looking for your product, and you show listings of counter products.
I don't know if that's right or wrong, but where does freedom of competition come in?
Saying another product sucks, because it's not yours certainly isn't freedom of competition. It's a way to convince people that your product is better, when most likely both products are about the same, and determined by personal opinion.
Why should companies attack other companies?
Can't you just state why your product is better, and leave it at that? Why defame others?
http://use.perl.org
Do these sorts of suits strike anyone else as utterly ridiculous ?
Absolutely not. I think it's utterly ridiculous to think these suits are utterly ridiculous, so there's a start.
I mean has anyone seen any pepsi/coke ads lately ? They feature their competitors unabashedly.
They do not feature their competitors unabashedly. They insult their competitors to coerce people into buying their product. There's no truth, just BUY US, NOT THEM, THEY SUCK.
It's wrong.
"No one should hear about the competitor's products when ours are mentioned".
That's not what this is about. This is about a company paying to have an advertisement when someone looks for your product.
And the only way to counter? To buy advertising yourself?
Great money making plan, if nothing else.
http://use.perl.org
If I buy ad space in the newspaper opposite a full-page Honda ad, or on the same page as a story about GM opening a new plant
No, this is more like opening a used car lot that sells Mazdas, and buying a spot under the Used Cars - Honda category, possibly without mentioning that you actually only sell Mazdas.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
If I am understanding this correctly, this is not about Google displaying a competitor's information on the same page as another -- the Yellow Pages argument doesn't fit.
... but oh well...)
This is about Google selling advertisement (search results?) showing a competitor when a user searched for a particular brand.
I don't know how any of that fits into any given legal ssytem but I do think that it's inappropriate in the sense that the user is probably not interested in seeing it. If I am searching for something about Volvo... parts or recall history or whatever, I sure as hell don't want my information contaminated with unrelated information from Ford or Chevrolet. So in that sense, I disagree with the practice.
Should Google be able to sell advertisement? YES. Should they be able to sell targeted advertisement? YES. Should they be able to sell targetted advertisement triggered by a competitor's trademark? No... they shouldn't do it... unless specific cases necessitate it. I'm from the South (Texas, USA -- that's kinda south) and out here, we ask for a "coke" when we want a soda and a "kleenex" when we want a tissue. The trademark became the item. I don't know if that's the case with this particular trademark issue, but I think Google should be responsible enough not to do what they are accused of having done. If I am Pepsi, I shouldn't be able to buy targetted advertising against "coke" or "coca-cola" as a keyword.
Now that said -- is the purchaser of said advertisement being held accountable for this? Google is a company with global availability and they cannot help when local laws are affected or when local companies feel offended. I think it would be more appropriate that authorities rule that Google remove such material but that the purchaser be held responsible -- not Google.
I'm recalling other areas where France has tried to rule against global companies such as eBay for allowing the sale of items that the French government has banned. So to France I say, "Dude! You're not the only people on the planet and certainly not the most important or significant. Get over yourself." (To that, I would expect an echo about the U.S.
It's not Google's fault, but much of TM law is based on consumer protection. It's there so that the consumer can easily identify the source.
Google could easily make it a policy that if you sue them, they blacklist you. They have NO obligation (other than to their shareholders) to index your site. It's their servers and their software, so they can do whatever they want with it. Actully, you could even make a strong argument that they have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders to avoid lawsuits, so blacklisting the trademarks of hostile companies is just good business practice.
If it were me, I'd say something like: You're not happy that your trademarked words can result in your competitors' pages coming back in the search results or adsense? No problem, well make it so that someone entering your trademark as a search term brings up a message that says "The following words are protected trademarks and were not included in your search: $TRADEMARK". Hope you're happy now, asshat.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
-
If it were me, I'd say something like: You're not happy that your trademarked words can result in your competitors' pages coming back in the search results or adsense? No problem, well make it so that someone entering your trademark as a search term brings up a message that says "The following words are protected trademarks and were not included in your search: $TRADEMARK". Hope you're happy now, asshat.
I'd prefer to see them take a different, better attitude towards this. What you're suggesting is exactly how Microsoft responded to the last antitrust lawsuits -- arrogance, haughtiness, refusal to cooperate, attempts to force any "remedy" to break the OS completely, etc. Remember how well that attitude helped them out? Even the general public started getting a bit pissed hearing how MS was acting in court. If Google tried the same Slashdotters would be declaring them an Evil Company (tm) right away.And what if google should decide to block all searches (return no results) for groups who sue them in this manner? Would anyone have a problem with that?
Yes, certainly. That would amount to either threatening people / organizations in order to prevent them from taking you to court or punishing them for bringing your crimes to the judiciaries attention. In Europe, and I should think in the USA, the courts would take a dim view of this.
Whether it's witness intimidation or scaled up to corporate levels, the principle is actually the same. The laws against this behviour are some of the oldest (and best thought out) on the books.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Quite apart from the legal issues, I wouldn't like to know that I might be missing something relevant just because somebody sued Google. If they want to remove references to something because of a lawsuit, shame on them; if they have to remove references to something because of a lawsuit, shame on the legal system.
If only the registered trademark owner is allowed to bid on ad space related to that registered trademark, the bidding is not going to go very high
This is true, but does the harm to Google outweigh harm to other business of allowing the practice? I'm not saying it does or doesn't, just that this is the issue.
It's not quite as bad as it sounds for Google however. That Ad space is still valuable, and they still have a monopoly on selling it. If they decide to set the price at X thousand Euros then Mazda will just have to stump up the cash or not have it. It's not like they can go elsewhere - so I expect a compromise price would happen. Neither will be totally satisfied but both will have gained. True trade happens between equal markets.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
As of public trials, they are always public ; what's not public is only some testimonies (but both accusation and defense are present anytime). It's reserved to cases involving sexual assault against underage youths, to avoid details reaching the press. That's all of it. And yes, there are laws to know what is reserved. But the trial is still considered public because you know who is accused, by whom, what for, and the result of the trial. Every testimony is also recorded.
Oh, and yes, forgot it, but... as a matter of fact, professional judges are PAID by the governement, but they have such legal protection that they are in fact out of reach from anybody. We consider it more a protection of civil liberties that a drawback.
But, you know, i can understand your concerns if you were to face an uknown system. I, on the opposite, finds it rather chilling to travel the USA for exactly the opposite reasons. Remember that police officer who jailed nearly a 100 black persons in texas, for drug trafic, most of his testimonies having been proved perjury since ? Do you know that however many of the 'so-called' convicts were released, some still remain in jail because they pleaded guilty in the hope of having a lighter sentence, therefore their cases were not reopened ? Where was the 'security' of the jury, when those jurors where chosen exclusively white ?