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 $257,430
(200,000 euros). Google is facing
similar lawsuits in different countries. In the United States, the company
recently
won a favorable ruling in a similar case brought by GEICO, the car insurance
company."
How the f$ck is this trandemark infringement?
Frivolous Lawsuit!
I mean, why should competitors be allowed to use a trademark in advertisements. That is copyright infringment no matter what way you look at it, and google should know better than to allow it. Would it be okay if a TV station let an advertiser infringe upon a trademark?
Pedro offers you his protection
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq. regime.change/
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.
The competitors are not using anyone else's trademarks in their ads (as I understand it). Google is placing their ads in pages that use someone else's trademark.
Like Chrysler buying ads in a TV program that mentions Ford. Is that illegal?
(And by the way it has nothing to do with copyrights. This is about trademarks.)
Did you sleep through the news of the girls in Colorado who were fined for giving cookies to their neighbor? Idiotic judgements are passed by every court in the world. Your jingoism is misplaced.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
IMHO, this is a pretty bogus ruling. The ads are distinct from the regular results and marked as such, so there's little grounds for any of the typical trademark "confusion" statues to apply. I don't think that this case would pass muster in a US court.
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.
Stallman likes to point out that the term "Intellectual Property" is a fallacy in the sense that copyright, patents, and trademarks are very different things that need to be discussed seperately. But one can at least identify one problem that they are all suffering from: courts and lawmakers forgetting their actual purpose, and treating them like they exist to protect incumbant companies.
In the case of Trademark, it's purpose is not to protect companies that take out trademarks, but to protect _consumers_. The point with trademark is that if I want a Coca-Cola, or a Louis-Vuitonn bag, I can be sure that what I buy is actually such a product, and not a cheap knock-off. Without trademark laws, it would be next to impossible to know what you are buying. That this leads to brands with incredible value is entirely incidental, and possibly not entirely positive.
So, in this context, the ruling could not be more stupid. How does it, in any way, hurt the consumer that competitors can advertise under queries for Louis-Vuitonn? As long as the ads are clearly marked as being adds for somebody else (as they are on Google), this will only increase competition and give the consumer more choice.
One can understand why Louis-Vuitton might not like that, but the role of the courts ought not be to do their bidding!
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.
What is wrong with these people? Instead of suing the company that used Google to infringe on copyright, they sue Google (the tool)?
Google could remove ads + indexed pages. Those who sue Google are not worth it to be found ;)
There is no anti-americanism in France, it's just a stupid court order. As for the nazi Yahoo auctions, it's just that Europe has a different version of what is free speech, which is comprehensible from a geographical point of view: Germany (with the Hitler guy) is in Europe.
Of course I don't pretend I can explain this court order, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the USA, GWB, the Irak war, the Nazis or an international Jewish/Freemasonry conspiracy, just some trademark issues.
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!
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
Is anybody else as sick of these "designers" as I am? Loius Vitton ( however you spell it ) just takes shit, and puts his initials on it, then sells it for $400 per purse. I should paste AK all over something and markup the price 500% too :P
Slashdot sucks
there is a famous (advertising world famous) pepsi commercial featuring a chimp on the beach refusing a can of coke, for transmission in the UK, they used the same footage, completely disguised the fact it was coke, and ran it again.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The fact that they are messed up to begin with...France is irrelevant.
That's rather extreme. Just because the French state has different political views and opinions to you, doesnt mean they are any less valid. We don't know enough about the case to judge whether or not their was any bias, so jumping to these sort of conclusions is not particularly helpful.
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
comparative advertising being one of them
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Uhm, offtopic anyone ? What do france-iraq american-iraq issues have in common w/ a trademark dispute ?
France Sales Office
54-56 avenue Hoche
75008 Paris
phone: +33-1-56-60-56-60
fax: +33-1-53-01-08-15
they'd have to pull outta town....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
it's the for profit advertising that violates french law.
In france, where they have an office.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
" There is no anti-americanism in France"
You have GOT to be kidding, right? Those french courts ruled the same way against google, an american company, twice, whereas American courts ruled the other way.
Sure, the laws are a bit different, but you're about to tell me there's no bias ? Where have you had YOUR head stuck in thr ground ?
Then perhaps there is a rational basis... but that seems like an awfully silly law to me.
"or maybe the ones where Bush Sr pats Bin Laden family members in the back..."
Yes, 'cause we all know that the family memebers of Ted Bundy should be ostracized forever because of his actions. Right?
It's those who bought the ads that should be liable, not Google.
Google is just the medium by which the ads are distributed. If an ad has false information or infringes a trademark, hold the people who created and paid for the ad responsible, not the messenger who delivered the ad.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
If (and I suspect that is a big if) Google is forced to comply with this extortion on the part of the French government, then Google should absolutely refuse to allow of their search engine or advertising services to anyone accessing their site from a .fr domain.
What the French government doesn't quite seem to understand is that, in the information age, France is just another brand. And, a minor legacy historical empire one at that. Notwithstanding the fact that the government of France is the king of all shit in the hexagon of land between Germany and Spain, Atlantic, and Mediteranian. And fully recognizing that France is the mother of western civilization and the primal definer of the good life, outside of France the French government doesn't amount to much.
Attention, mes amis, don't put yourselves in the position of forcing us to choose between Google and France. You won't be happy with the results. We like France; we need Google. We don't particularily need or like Louis Vitton company or their rich parasitic customers.
IANAL and I am not a historian, but it seems like Trademark law in france is pretty gnarly. Palm Pilot vs Pilot pens, Lindows(well dutch, but close enough) and now this. Discuss amongst yourselves.
A survey found that only 1 in 6 people could tell the difference between unbiased search results and bought ads.
Trademark law is all about consumer confusion, if the results end up misleading/confusing the customer then there are problems.
LV is trying to claim that Google, a company which is not beholden to them, has somehow diluted their trademark by associating other companies with it. However, if google didn't index pages linking to them, or their pages, then they wouldn't come up at all. When X is the amount of business driven to LV by google, and Y is the percentage of that business lost by people buying competing (and sometimes knockoff) products, Losing Y percent of X still leaves you with infinitely more profit from that source than you paid for.
In other words, google is a free resource and they have no right to bitch about what ads are shown along google searches for their trademark.
The counterargument is probably that because google is ubiquitous in search, they have an unfair position in the market from which to do things like this. However, they are anything but a monopoly, so that argument really doesn't wash - especially since it's not illegal to sell LV and a competing product in the same store (unless the competing product is illegal anyway) so it makes no sense to make it illegal to mention them together on the same web page. But then, most legal systems since Hammurabi are not based on what makes sense for the most people.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's in France and this is an American company. They hate the players and the game in France.
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
I'm sure France is just getting back at Google for this: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.ht
In the US you can still compare products under the "fair use" doctrine. The problem here is that sometimes it's hard for the end user to distinguish the results, imagine if you typed in "Playboy" and got an unnamed banner ad (actual case), how would you know that that banner ad wasn't "Playboy"'s? So the question gets a little fuzzier when things are clearly marked, but a recent survey http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=437251 found that only 1 in 6 people can distinguish between regular results and the ads. That means people are buying use of your protected trademark and directing users to their own sites.
Um, Saddam was killing his own people long before that picture, and the US also knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war before this picture was taken.
Both of those reasons were used as rationales for going to war against Iraq this time, so I'm not sure what the whole, "Saddam had to screw up first" is in reference to. The war with Kuwait? Saddam invaded another soveirgn country, Iran, and the US didn't care. So what made that Rummy so different from today's Rummy?
Oh, I'm sorry, I just destroyed the fantasy of war mongerers everywhere......
Monstar L
I really enjoy the irony of a semi-trademarked phrase being using in your sig. ;)
Fashion Designer Louis Vuitton sue google because they noticed a "recent and dramitic drop" in their web site visitor statistics.
Said B.S. Manager of Louis Vuitton, "We've noticed a significant drop in our referrer logs. It seems that we are no longer getting 100,000+ referrals from google. They must have changed their search algorithm".
More news as it develops....
From a country that simply doesn't have the notion of free speech, and also prohibited asymmetric cryptography ?
The Raven
Yes they can if they cease doing business in France. Somehow I don't think its worth doing that to save 200K euros
barely legal.
" The comparative advertising is rarely used in France because its conditions are very strict and the limit with the unfair and denigrating advertising is quickly passed over."
http://www.chaillot.com/En/pages/p9.html
so, google crossed the line.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I don't like Vuitton's ordure-brown, self-promoting, ugly products as much as the next free thinker, but who's the real idiot? The person who sells the overpriced bag, or the person who buys it?
Much as I'd love to be able to sell a bag that costs more than my computer, I can't help but think of those who buy such products as easily-led fools.
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
Google made $1.03 billion during the last three months (link to CNN report on my blog at: http://sundroid.blogspot.com/). I did a little calculation, and it turns out that Google made $7,947 a minute, so the fine from the French court, $257K. is equal to 32 minutes of Big-G's earning power.
Sun and Fun
One of the interesting side effects of the information age is that it is no longer possible to judge a correspondent's quality by the number of spelling and grammar mistakes made in their writing. Until recently, it was common to do so.
However, now, it simply means that the linkage between the spelling and grammar checker is faulty on the writer's computer. Or they forgot to use a spelling and grammar checker. Or it's too slow or not seamlessly integrated into the operating system. Or it's set to a wrong language translator.
Linux will finally be accepted and embraced by the computer user community when we can do these things much better than Windows. All this other legal and technical stuff is just a distraction by the obsessive/compulsive lawyers and software engineers to impede us from creating truly useful and functionally powerful solutions to software problems.
So remember, run your stuff through a spell and grammar checker.
Ahem... there is Anti-Americanism in France. I'm French, and don't live there anymore, but I think I can still say that with some credibility.
You could even call me anti-american if you thought my opposing GWB's asinine policies qualified. Now, I don't have all americans, just the minority of assholes that "lead" the country.
Anyhow, that ruling should not be seen as a sign of anti-Americanism. Perhaps more a sign of a different understanding of trademarks in France (try calling a California wine a Champagne, and see what happens to you), as well as their courts having missed the internet clue-train.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
As I cruise through some of the commens the bias here on /. seems to be negative towards this ruling. And I, for one, do not understand it.
Imagine a scenario where Google sells an AdWord subscription to Microsoft. The keywork they sell is "Linux". Thus, everytime someone does a search on Linux the top link will take them to a page extolling Windows and explaining how the TCO for Windows is considerably less than that of Linux. This is clearly not an acceptable practice. Google needs to use some discretion on who they sell this Adword subscriptions too. A generic noun (like handbag or Operating System) is fair game to anyone. But a trademark needs to be carefully considered.
Also, it seems to me that the comments with this story are tainted with ridiculous Anti-French/Anti-American polarization which is insane. This is a product of silly US Media punditry and should be held in check. Let's keep it to discussing the nature of Google's Adword program and its effects of Trademarks.
[yeah, feeding trolls and what not... but this attitude is prevalent enough I wanted to make this point]
:)
Screw France, hein?
I bet a few would say "Je t'emmerde"
Oh, and talking about complicity, remember thhose details about not letting Jews emigrate, IBM selling equipment and GWB's grand-daddy making a fortune? An anglophone saying about pots and kettles might apply here.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
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.
I know its more fun to just jump to a conclusion, but lets stop and think for a second.
Is it a crime to refer someone to A if one asks for B.
Wouldn't that depend on what type of service you're running?
If you were running a telephone directory service, and every time I asked you to connect me with DELL customer support you'd connect me with HP, I'd start to get pretty pissed, pretty fast. Espacially if I were DELL.
However, if you were running a PC purchasing consultancy firm, I'd be right in assuming that you would provide me with added information on which PC maker wsould be preferable to contact. However, I'd be pretty pissed again if I found out the only reson you refered me to B instead of A wat the fact that they were paying you to.
However again, If I would know that you're advertising company, and I know that you are just suggesting an alternative to my inquiry without changing the actual outcome of my search. I don't think I'd care. The equivilent of saying:"Sure, here is the number of DELL, but do you know you could also call HP, who is paying us to mention this to you."
Taking all that into account I can't help but feel that for the umpteenth time the judge simply didn't understand the how and what of it all.
The reason for this is the dificulty the law is having on applying existing laws to new situations.
If the use of a keyword is trademark infringment, then I guess google's answer to this runling could be painfully clear. "Sure, we'll pay the fine, and after that anyone requesting that particular keyword won't get any results whatsoever!" I wonder if that would break the ice.;-)
"This is clearly not an acceptable practice. "
why not?
As long as it's an ad.
On a poractical note, if someone is looking into Linux, then they know the MS viewpoint already.
This will be true with just about any product.
It is perfectly reasonably for me to put an ad for my product on a billboard near a competitor.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I believe what is at issue is this: Google offered the words "Louis Vitton" for sale. It's not about the ads that were shown, It's not about searching, it was the fact that Google put up for bid the trademarked name "Louis Vitton". Since we are all fond of analogies, imagine if you will the telephone book offering for sale real estate in the yellow pages under a section called "Coke" and a section called "Wal Mart".
It wouldn't fly.
for Google to remove LV from their index.
Perhaps remove all french based companies.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes you can, depending on what country you are in. Advertising laws are different across the globe. America is pretty good about freedom in advertising. Some foreigners would be very surprised to come to America and see a Big Mac in Subway's latest ad campaign.
The parent article is awfully misleading. Our legal systems differ on trademarks enforcement, and google fell in a trap it should have avoided by simply asking a competent local lawyer. Who's concerned ? google.FR ; why ? so-called anti-americanism ? Bullshit. We've got cases of the very same nature dating back to the 19th century between french firms. Google pobably thought they could come down there and do business as they see fit, but we're not a 3rd world country, and you can't bribe judges to twist the law. It has nothing to see with governement either.
So what's it all about ? Unfair competition. It has been ruled for over a 100 years that it is a civil wrong for a company to use the efforts made by another firm to promote its trademarks. Little example : A has a trademark 'a' ; B pays 'wall mart' for, whenever a consummer wants 'a' product, to give him a discount on 'b' product, or advertize 'b'. Why ? because B is in fact capitalizing on the money A spent to have 'a' trademark known to the public, without paying back A for this effort, thus 'stealing' it from A. 'wall mart' is wrongfully getting a profit out of it either.
The case of YP is different, because when one checks the YP, it looks for a type of good or service, and the YP comprehensively lists all the places you can find one, in alphabetical order, and no discrimination ; you can't check the YP for a trademark.
You may have a different opinion in the USoA, but know what ? We don't care.
Or write a EULA that says "I won't sue Google for using any of the ad words I'm bidding on."
Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
"Laissez Faire" was french...
Official sites should have to be registered in something called "The google directory". And they would have to appear first in the search results.
Of course, the official site would say if it could allow targetted ads on a specific search (or something).
Microsoft ads show up all the time on Slashdot. There isn't an eruption of outrage about it - most think it's funny. Your example doesn't hold any water.
It would be similar to a village turning their collective backs on a miscreant in their midst as if he/she never existed. They've been shunned. Imagine, any reference whether it be a personal page, or a blog, or even a particular page from a store advertising the trademarked name completely being wiped off any possible combination of searches. The beauty of it is, they could just set the filter for France, just like they probably do or eventually will set up human-rights filters for China. That company would get no free advertising within their own country on Google. Pretty powerful statement. However, in America, Google could continue business as usual with the trademark since it's legal there.
= 9J =
Those adds are also forbidden in France ; if you believe we're spoon-fed the same ad campaigns you've got on MTV, you're dead wrong. And any big international company knows it since a long long time. Google should definitvely have known it as well.
Imagine if I call Home Depot and ask for a Price Pfister and the sales person responds that he likes American Standard better. Uh oh, Home Depo can now be sued because in response to my query, they mentioned a competing product. What about the common practice at car dealerships to ask what other cars one is looking at? "Oh, you are looking at a Civic? Our Altima is the same but better." Honda should sue to trademark infringement.
Strictly applied, I think all supermarkets can be sued as well. They take money for product placement and group products together. So, if you are looking for Jif, you get peanut butter "responses" when you get to the appropriate isle, but the Jiffy distributor paid the supermarket money for better product placement, and is on a shelf with a higher sale rate. They paid for placement designed to snub competitors.
Is it just me, or do most of the court rulings on technicological things appear stupid when universally applied? The only question is whether technology is so far divorced from regular life, or whether the rulings are handed down by idiots...
Learn to love Alaska
Well in that case it wasn't just a difference in Free Speech thoughts, it was also one of jurisdiction.
Having studied the history of the case, I think there is some element of French anti-US nose-thumbing when the court finds that it has jurisdiction over the US based Yahoo and not the French subsidiary. Especially considering that they refuse to enforce the order knowing it would never be upheld in the US, when they could have easily held against the French subsidiary (which runs Yahoo.fr) and enforced their decision there.
google should just block all of france...
So a French court entered a judgment. Is that judgment automatically enforceable against Google's assets in the U.S., presumably under a reciprocal treaty? Or can Google argue in a U.S. court that the French ruling should not be enforced because it violates some U.S. policy, such as our Constitutional protection of free speech?
200,000 euros? That's like the profit Louis Vuitton makes on one freaking change purse!
Google's success is also their own undoing, just like Microsoft.
In this case, people are viewing Google as ubiquitous, just like Windows. People use google to search for things, and only google. So, if someone goes to google and searches for a specific type of handbag, it's ingenuous for google to tell them "Nah, go here".
I understand the courts' logic, even if it is completely and utterly wrong. There are alternatives to Google, and it's not difficult to switch like it is with Windows.
Since most of the folks here are in America, they tend to respond with American ways of thinking. For the record, I'm a US citizen with 11 years of service in the US Navy and I am a disabled vet.
A good example of how France handled the case can be seen in how many cars are marketed in Europe. In the US, every vehicle is compared to the competition (ex: The Ford F250 has more towing power than a Chevy pickup, has more legroom than a Dodge pickup, and has better rims than the Toyota Tundra). This is not allowed in Europe. They can extoll the virtues of their own vehicles without dragging in other manufacturers products. To an informed consumer, both methods are silly, since they're all based on lies, damn lies and statistics.
Therefore, one is not allowed to use someone else's trademark in advertising in most European countries. This seems to be the spot where Google got in trouble. While it can be argued that Google was only the messenger, they actually made money from selling the key adwords that were trademarked. I think this is where they got hit, since they made a profit from the dealing. If they didn't charge for keywords, they probably would have avoided the fine. Perhaps if they change their adwords to kill trademarked names and separate the first and last names as different words, instead of the phrase "Louis V..." use "Louis" "Vuitton" "handbag", they could get away with it, but with this on the books I'd be extra cautious. As someone else pointed out, hire a lawyer and get legal in most of Europe - pay less than the 250K they were fined. Good insurance, IMHO.
"First things first, but not necessarily in that order."
- Doctor Who
But should they be able to out-bid you on your own name?
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. For example, only Mazda would be allowed to bid on the Mazda keyword, and Google's options would be to A) Sell ad space only to Mazda at whatever price Mazda was willing to pay, with Mazda knowing that if they don't buy the space nobody can, or B) Don't sell the ad space to anyone. Even if a Mazda dealer wanted to buy the space, Mazda could sue (to eliminate ad competition, which may or may not be a good business decision). This would likely deter Google from selling the ad space to others due to the risk of a lawsuit.
I think part of the problem here is different laws between the two countries. In the US, Google is not infringing on GEICO's trademark if they triggering advertisement via a trademark, but the same does not appear to be true in France.
Perhaps there are some nuances about the French civil law that makes using trademarked items as advertisement triggers an infringement.
Unfortunately I cannot read French, nor find a copy of the ruling.
In the near future it will be illegal for anyone to interact else in any way. If you're smart, you'll buy a plot of land so you can grow your own food and make your own clothes before land transactions become illegal, too.
Some young girls in Colorado were successfully sued for giving a neighbor cookies, for crying out loud.
Microsoft does this! It gets people mad, or they laugh at it, but nobody is trying to take them to court over this. That's because it is perfectly legal.
Imagine a scenario where Google sells an AdWord subscription to Microsoft. The keywork they sell is "Linux". Thus, everytime someone does a search on Linux the top link will take them to a page extolling Windows and explaining how the TCO for Windows is considerably less than that of Linux. This is clearly not an acceptable practice. Google needs to use some discretion on who they sell this Adword subscriptions too. A generic noun (like handbag or Operating System) is fair game to anyone. But a trademark needs to be carefully considered. (Emphasis added) I for one would like to ask, why not? In my view it would be fair game for Red Hat (or IBM, FSF, and any other Linux advocates) to buy an AdWord subscription and use the keyword "Microsoft" to explain the benefits of open source, improve Linux's 'presence' (think about who search for Microsoft), and improved security. Under the GEICO ruling, this would be a perfectly legitimate practice and without infringing on the GEICO trademark. I fail to see why the above would not be an acceptable practice, and in reverse, why Microsoft couldn't buy the keyword "linux" for its AdWord subscription.
Second is the fact that Google isn't the infringer. The company placing the ad is. But Google is effectively an "accomplice". And since they're the ones with the deep pockets, they're the ones that get sued. First rule of litigation: Sue the deep pockets!
"Psst. Hey, if you give me $1,000 I'll make sure the next 100 customers trying to buy an LV bag get to your site instead, where possibly no LV bags are sold, although similar products are available for sale."
Of course, that's not Google's intent, but it *is* what happens. Company X is profiting from LV's trademark. LV spent huge amounts of money to build that mark, and it is common in Europe to disallow mention competitor's names or marks in advertising, let alone attempt to divert spending power by redirecting customers.
-- Religion is not an exact science
Google should delete any entries in their database to www.vuitton.com or www.geico.com or any other a$$holes who want to whine about the paid advertisers. Why fight them in court when they have the biggest stick on the internet? Tell them they can pay the regular rate to appear at the top of the google ads if they want to show up at all.
so, they like the additional traffic and sales that result from the FREE ADVERTISING provided for them by google in the form of search results, but they don't like competition...
industry business indexes have been doing something similar to this in print for years. i know, i used to buy ad space in these publications.
sum.zero
No, this is like having someone yell "I want brand X of producttype foobar", who is then approached by someone who says "Have a look at brand Y of producttype foobar", while at the same time that person finds what he was looking for.
And then Brand X starts crying foul.
Now, all Google has to do is blacklist anything related to the people who sued it, and they will cease to exists on the interenet as we know it.
"Just because the French state has different political views and opinions to you,"
Now now, I wouldn't say the French state has aims all that different from the US. Both are in favor of expanding the power of the national government at the expense of personal and provincial rights. It's just the French are more honest about it than the GOP who cries "smaller government!" while doing the direct opposite.
The minute any company complains about the ads returned when their company name is used as a search term, Google removes all search results for that particular term. "Louis Vuitton" - zero results found - no ads.
They can honestly claim they are doing their best to avoid any possibility of trademark infringement, while at the same time punishing those who attempt overzealous IP enforcement.
This solution though is perhaps a tad too 'evil' for Google.
... abandon any physical presence in France, and give them the big middle finger.
Of course, they'd have to weigh the money they gain from having a presence in france vs money lost to lawsuits like this- this one judgement doesn't seem like that much in the grand scheme of things, but many like it would be problematic.
Personally, I think that if Vitton is too much of a pussy to handle a little competition, that's his problem, not googles.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
You're retarded.
Google is acting in the manner most consistent with the interests of the consumer.
I suggest that Louis Vuitton deal with the fact that yes, they do have competitors who do buy ad space adjacent to their products. Trying to insist that competitors products not be placed adjacent to theirs is not in the interests of consumers. It's Louis Vuitton which is acting improperly and should be fined in this case.
Meanwhile, I'll remember that Louis Vuitton apparently has so little confidence in their products that they need to try approaches I consider to be unethical to try to stop consumers from finding out about the alternatives in the marketplace.
Please note that Slashdot displays the destination of links adjacent to them, so no reader of this post can possibly be confused about where any of the links I have used goes. And yes, this post is intended to be amusing as well as make a serious point about competition, lack of consumer confusion and ethics.
Turn down google in France, thus causing the country to deteroriate into a technological backwater as no one in the country is able to find anything on the Internet ever again.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Do I think a wrong is done when someone buys an ad that hijacks a competitors trademark and redirects it to a knockoff business? Yes, of course. But the guilty party is the one who bought the ad, NOT the one whom the ad was bought from (Google). What this ruling says is that it is Google's responsibility to have hordes of people manually checking on every single keyword anyone ever buys to check it for trademark overlap. Yah, that's really fucking fair.
If I take out a classified Ad in the newspaper that makes fradulent claims, then *I* am the one responsible for the fraud, not the newspaper. This should be the same way.
But, of course, that's not the way the bullshit courts in the world work. Instead people attack the richest party that was even slightly involved, because that's where the big payout is, instead of attacking the guiltiest party.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
What about those little coupon printers at the checkout lanes in supermarkets? If I buy a box of brand X dog food, it will probably print a coupon for brand Y dog food. They have software that scans what I have bought and prints coupons from advertisers who want to target people who buy specific items.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Check out their results from suing:
1. They get paid loads of money.
2. There are no more competing AdSense results.
3. Official site ranked first in Google results.
I haven't seen analysis this poor since the Win v. Linux TCO stuff. It is utterly idiotic to claim the ruling to be wrong just because it doesn't fit in with ones view of justice.
The French courts have ruled that Adword goes against their trademark and/or copyright laws and by the same account the US courts says that it doesn't violate US laws. And until appeals courts say otherwise, that's that.
You also can't reflect the French decision on other European countries. The ruling wasn't based on EU-directives but rather on the French law. Just follow the P2P-trial rulings around Europe and you see how different the laws (hence rulings) are.
Wether the trademark/copyright laws are out of date (duh!), is a question worth discussing,
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
but you can't contract really for governmental fines and sanctions..
i.e. if it turned out offensive to another corporate entity, it would be the problem of the advertiser. But if it was so explicit/blatant as to be regulated/sanctioned by local government, the station should have refused to air the material.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Maybe they should have given up more obscure search phrases. "louis vuiton" don't have trademark rights over that name, they have it over that name in the context of bags, fashion, perfume.
e.g. louis vuiton demands a block on use of their trademark, Google offers "louis vuiton bags", "louis vuiton fashion", "louis vuiton perfume" which more closely defines what their trademark actually covers.
When I search louis vuiton, am I looking for the brand the person or shops that stock louis vuiton brands? In other words the name alone isn't the trademark, it is the trademark in a context.
I dunno who's stupider, the idiotic French courts or half the people posting on here.
If Coke buys an ad in the New York Times and uses the Pepsi trademark, do you sue New York Times???? NO! If anyone is comitting Trademark infringment it is Coke! Christ!
When the New York Times sells advertizing space to someone they never heard of using some trademark they never heard of, are they supposed to do some sort of trademark search to ensure that the advertizer is either the trademark holder or authorized by the trademark holder? Hell, how the hell are they even supposed to know that something is trademarked at all? Are they supposed to do a trademark search on every word and every combination of words in the ad?
And then there is the HUGE fact that multiple people are allowed to use the same trademark. In some cases there may be a HUNDRED different companies in a hundred different fields all using the same or nearly identical trademarks. Perfectly legal. Anyone who thinks a single company owns a trademark as if it were their sole personal property simply does not know anything about trademark law. For example "Staxx" is trademarked by a medical implant company, by a dinnerware/china company, and by a furniture company. And if I want to open a luggage company I am perfectly free to use the trademark Staxx for myself. I too would be a trademark owner on "Staxx". We can all "own" the exact same trademark in different feilds.
Not to mention the fact that pretty much every country runs their own trademarks and different companies in different countries can both have the same trademark, even if they are in the same business.
It is absolutely insane to suggest that Google is somehow supposed to sort out what is and is not trademark infringment. *IF* there is any trademark infringment then it is by the advertizer, and just because someone else uses that trademark does not make it trademark infringment. *If* there is any legal action to be take it is against the advertizer using the mark.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It makes it right in France, only in France, but on our whole territory without exception.
How's this for an argument: A Frenchman says to an American that the war in Iraq is illegal and unjust. The American reply's: shove it Frenchy... Preemptive wars are how we do things in America. Therefore, it's just and legal.
You're making a confusion ; when we say it's illegal for the USA to invade Irak in front of international laws, it just means we won't send troops, we won't pay, the ONU won't spend money to help you. Appart from that, you of course do as you please, if you're happy to spend thousands of american lives in a pointless venture, and a couple of billons, it's your problem. As long as I don't pay for it, I don't care. Now, try sending troops in Little Britany, and the nature of the problem will be very different.
Google should comply with the court order to the extreme. Any search on the company's name should return the message "Nothing found for search term 'whatever'".
-- Will program for bandwidth
I can understand how these adds under the LV name are infringing their trademark, but surely it should be the people who placed these adds getting sued rather than Google?
I'd laugh if, as a result of this, the #1 search result becomes this discussion about how stupid this is, sort of how liigious bastards turns up SCO
For a few months back, any time you visited a site (even slashdot) extolling the virtues of Linux, you got a banner ad for the low TCO of Windows (it was the study comparing the TCO of Windows on el-cheapo Dells with the TCO of Linux on IBM's zSeries mainframes - quite funny actually, once you dig through the fud).
/., el reg, ars and others pick up the fact that MS is fudding, and MS takes down the fud in embarassment.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with such ads. I like Linux; other people like Windows. Both are operating systems. Both compete in the same market niches. For some applications, it's a tossup as to which one is actually better. So why not carry the ads? Problems only arise if the ads are misleading (such as the fud-full campaign I described above) - in which case
My guess is that Google's legal team popped a couple of bottles of expensive French champagne upon hearing that the fine is a surprisingly low $257K. Let's do some math: Google is expected to have a gross income of about $4 billion this year, which is 100,000 times the earning power of a person making $40K a year, so $257K penalty is equivalent to $2.57 for the hard-working salaryman.
Sun and Fun
Why is this an issue for Google, a US corporation with its servers outside of French jurisdiction? If French law is incompatible with Google's business model, their courts should just make it illegal for French citizens and residents to attempt to connect to Google's servers from within French jurisdiction.
Of course they don't want American Google putting Italian Gucci/Prada/Armani ads next to searches for French LVMH products. It's nationalism! I'd be surprised if LVMH suppliers weren't buying ads for "gucci" searches. Oh well, no biggie.
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
yeah - they've really started to suck since then - it's kind of sad
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
The distinction between the trademark holder and the advertisers is already clear on google (much clearer than on either Yahoo! or MSN Search, by the way - or have you bothered to try either - and why isn't Vuitton suing Yahoo! or MSN?).
Vuitton's web site is the #1 result returned. They have nothing to bitch about. They're bitching because some lawyer has too much time on their hands, and is trying to justify his/her cushy corporate job.
If I buy a trademarked item, and offer it for sale, I am allowed to use the trademark in my ad. There is zero dilution of the trade mark in such cases - quite the contrary, it reinforces the trademark as referring to a specific product or service. The holder of the trademark cannot stop me from using it to identify the goods in question (hint: its called a "trade" mark for a reason - identifying specific products in the trade).
So what? As long as the ads do not have illegal content (for example, falsely offering fake goods under the trademark), this is just competition, not a misuse of a trademark.Your argument would also prevent people from publishing anything dilatory about any company without their permission. Technology isn't the answer - the answer is the same as during Shakespeare's time - kill the lawyers.
http://www.yankovic.org/WeirdAl/h_Alapalooza/index .php
... or as Weird Al says
Until it makes its way through the appeal process, there's no reason not to believe this wasn't a stupid judgment, rather than a reflection of what the law actually says.
And, as I point out elsewhere, why isn't Vuitton taking Yahoo! or MSN Search to court? After all, if you don't vigorously defend your trademark, you lose it. By not taking similar action against these other two. I checked earlier today, and there were other products offered - much more prominently - on both sites when searching for "Louis Vuitton".
Maybe this whole mess could cause Louis Vuitton to lose its trademark status - after all, there must have been millions of searches that were done before they complained even once..
Of course my sentence is parseable, though you might have been thrown by my use of "browser" to mean a person, not a software agent. But since you imply that I somehow haven't seen Google adwords at work in a page, your responses in this thread really just look like you're deliberately trying not to understand, and just argue. Especially since we agree that Google returning adwords that most prominently feature the owner of the trademark are OK, but you insist on casting your phrasing of that case adversarially. You'd make a typical, if not good, lawyer. FWIW, the dilatory comments associated with a trademark are already covered by the "fair use" of trademarks to identify the subject of parody or criticism - even in less consumer-friendly IP, like copyright, which allows something like a protected song to be used to parody something else, as in your example. You're humming the right tune - maybe you should make the effort to parse the words.
--
make install -not war
"Thus, everytime someone does a search on Linux the top link will take them to a page extolling Windows..."
If it were the top link, perhaps you would have a point, but it is not the top link, is it?
If you say yes it is, please document the fact.
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Absolutely true about Europe, but....
This ruling takes that principle further, the adverts weren't *using* the trademark, they were simply positioned *next* to search results that included the trademark. Thats 2 steps removed!
It does represent a shift in the law here, if it continues what next? Will Vuitton want only Vuitton official websites listed on the search term?
No. The point that everyone seems to have missed, is the reason they were suing is not because simply because competitors were buying their precious trademark on AdSense, but that they were using it to sell counterfeits. i.e. selling fake versions of their stuff which did infringe on their trademark.
It wasn't Gucci/Prada/Armani ads as one poster said.
Nor is it compariable to a JC Penny's employee standing outside Boston Store and telling people on their way in to go to Penny's instead
Nor is it like the other day when a friend asked me about Ford trucks, and I told him he should buy a Dodge instead
Nor is it like if I call Home Depot and ask for a Price Pfister and the sales person responds that he likes American Standard better
Nor is it like in the yellow pages when (for example) Acura can put an 800 number in all the phone books printed by SBC (or on their behalf) in the cars section
Nor is it like if I'm at a restaurant in France and I ask for a Coke, and the waitress says "Is Pepsi ok?
Nor is it like if you were running a telephone directory service, and every time I asked you to connect me with DELL customer support you'd connect me with HP
Nor is it like Microsoft ads showing up all the time on Slashdot
Google is selling Louis Vuitton's brand names to promote companies selling counterfeit copies of Louis Vuiton's products.
The key word here is counterfeit, not competing brand.
Whether you agree with the ruling or not, at least get the facts right.
Are you nuts? They have the trademark over the name. Period. In all uses.
Now, personally, I think Google's approach to this needs to take their users into consideration. Parent suggested blocking Louis Vuiton, but not only does that hurt the company, it also hurts Google's users, who are trying to find relevant search results. If Google's users are unhappy, they use Google less, and thus Google gets less advertising dollars, and then shareholders become unhappy. So ultimately Google has to please its users because that directly impacts their ad sales.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
It seems the purchaser of the ad would be the trademark infringer, not Google, even if the use of a context-free word was a trademark violation.
sig fault
Let's start with a fairly obvious question... if I purchase advertising space in a newspaper, and then misuse a trademark in the advert, who is liable - the newspaper, or me?
And trademarks only apply in certain circumstances - ie. within certain contexts. Microsoft trademarks the word 'Windows' in the computing arena, but you certainly couldn't claim trademark infringement for a double glazing firm using 'windows' in it's advertising.
Google operates in a global arena, and covers every topic, industry, etc. under the sun. Even if there was a case for Google to block the misuse of trademarks as adwords (which might make sense for them to do as a service to their clients anyway), surely it is the responsiblity of those placing the ads to not infringe on others trademarks (both as adwords, and in the content of the ads themselves)?
"Are you nuts? They have the trademark over the name. Period. In all uses."
Not at all, that seems to be a common misconception!
Apple (Jobs) owns the trademark in computers, but Apple (beatles) own the trademark in records. Even then there may be several owners of the trademark since different markets can have different owners.
The trademark protection is only for the market they are in and only for the product the mark covers.
I agree with the rest of your post though, Google still have to deliver the best result possible regardless of who they are pissed at.
You're = you are. Look into it.
If this were valid, then a newspaper or magazine that ran a Burger King ad on the same page as an article about McDonalds would be infringing on McDonalds, because they are using people's interest in McDonalds to lead them to the Burger King ads, as well as any other ads on that page. All publications that sell ads make money from everything mentioned in their content. That's a fact of life that dates back to before "intellectual property" was invented. I can't believe this ruling will hold up under appeal.
it's just that Europe has a different version of what is free speech
I think you meant "Only values free speech when it doesn't offend too many people.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Then tell me this: what if someone searches for, say, "Vuitton competitors". Or "Vuitton sucks".
What else do you expect from a country that is as screwed up as France? France is the worst country in the world.
Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb?
A: One Frenchman to hold it and all of Europe turns around him.
There are not enough derogatory adjectives in the English language to describe just how plain BAD France is.
Disclaimer: I'm a French citizen. I got out of that stupid place, live in America now, and am awaiting my American citizenship, at which point I will FINALLY renounce my French citizenship, something I don't want people to know I am associated with.
France... The worst country in the world.
Well maybe.
Consider the cost of policing every keyword bid for trademark infringement, if this cost is greater than the potential revinue from the ad, it is cheaper to simply ignore the bid rather than do the research... supposing that eventually this cost is greater than the potential revinue to the advertiser from the ad, they will not bother to post a bid. Further supposing that this becomes the case for all ads, there would be no more revinue to google in that market and therefore no reason to index pages there.
Now does anyone have any numbers to back up/refute this supposition?
I'll admit my bias is that i'd like it to be supported. it would force France to rethink the application of its laws in this case, which i personally disagree with. I don't see from the article that google "[sold] the Louis Vuitton trademark to third parties."
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Maybe not 200k, but consider how expensive it would be to change thier policy. They would have to compile a list of all trademarks (in France, but probably in all countries in order for a company to not just go to France and sue them) and thats just so you could make a policy for no Trademarks in AdWords. If they wanted a company to be able to advertise using its own trademark (which most companies would demand) they would have to establish a fool proof automated system capable of verifying that the company's ownership of the trademarks. The mind reels at the potential expense of such a system.
Add to that that Google doesn't really need a French office. I have no idea why a company like Google would have European offices and subject themselves to all those additional regulations. Its not hard to hire someone in the US to translate the page into French.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
So some other company came up in the advertisement box, when the user searched for the brand they wanted.
Big deal.
A story earlier in the week was saying how more than 80% of people aren't smart enough to tell the difference between advertisements and the real search results. I take your comment to mean that you are one of those people.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
According to the article "to sell the Louis Vuitton trademark to third parties, specifically to Web sites selling counterfeits".
Given that the fine is trivial (when you're a multibillion dollar company) I assume that Google were suckered into selling advertising to counterfeiters, and this is a slap on the wrist from a French judge to pay a bit more attention.
Life is a continual education in the triumph of application over ability.
Under normal circumstances, a trademark can coexist with another identical one if they are in different classes. A mark that is registered for bags and fashion and perfume would not be in conflict with the same mark for completely unrelated products, like cars or building materials or telecommunication services.
But if a mark is sufficiently well known, it gets a wider protection because it's "famous". The protection will then be extended to unrelated products as well.
There is nothing fishy about the fact that the really well known marks get this special treatment. It's called "Kodak protection" after a landmark case that is considered to have established the principle, and is completely above board.
Withoug being much of an expert on ladies' handbags, I assume that Louis Voiton would be considered "famous" by the court. They would then in fact have the trademark rights to the word in the context of any goods.
The same of course applies to Coca-Cola, which another poster mentioned.
IANATML, but I worked with computer programs for doing phonetic similarity searches on trademarks for 25 years, so I'm resonably familiar with the area.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
Of course, the search "alternatives to Lois Vuitton" should work just fine.
Google doesn't have to provide services that benefit or even mention any specific entity. I think a freeze-out is a perfectly suitable response to this sort of bullying.
This is not my sandwich.
Sorry, cultural memory only lasts 7 days.
Tsunami? What tsunami?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
You add to Google's noise by providing a link to a sooo-stupid propaganda page. Nice advertising from you.
Furthermore, Google could sue this site for trademark infringement...
I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
If someone takes a bus to my place of business, and they see a competitor's ad displayed on its side, by this logic I'm allowed to sue the bus company.
Wat???
Mon dieu, les Francais sont vraiment con!