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."

Comments

This is plain stupid.

[tomhudson]

What next - being sued because you bought yellow pages advertising on the same page as a competitor?

How the f$ck is this trandemark infringement?

Re:This is plain stupid.

[Moby Cock]

Because they are making money of a trademark they don't own.

It's not complicated.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[tomhudson]

They are selling AD SPACE. If I have a Mazda to sell, I can mention the Mazda trademark in ads. 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, that's their tough shit. Sure, my ad will be seen by more people because it's next to something else - that's life.

People doing searches for Louis V-whatever-the-frig-handbags are going to see ads for others - boo hoo.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[h4rm0ny]

If I have a Mazda to sell, I can mention the Mazda trademark in ads.

I think you're misleading people. It's more the case of (to use your example) Ford outbidding Mazda for the advertising space on their name. You search for Mazda and up comes Ford.

You might not care much about Ford vs. Mazda. Suppose it were Microsoft buying up all the ad-space for Red Hat, or Walmart buying up the ads for $SMALL_CHAIN.

If they want to bid on a type of item, say car, well that's one thing. But should they be able to out-bid you on your own name? One to think about more carefully.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[hanssprudel]

Have you used Google lately? It isn't the yellow-pages, it is a search engine, and searching for Louis-Vuitton turns up guess who as the first hit.

The advertisements pruchased by competitors where clearly marked as such and on the sides.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[tomhudson]

So what?

It's not like there's a finite amount of ad space - advertising space grows as the budget for it grows.

Let's reverse your scenario - according to your way of thinking, Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to advertise in Linux Magazine.

It's advertising, and that's the nature of the beast. Or would you also restrict people from mentioning openoffice when people ask about Microsoft Office? Or Firefox when people search for Internet Exploder?

Re:This is plain stupid.

[Ronin Developer]

Actually, they do. The same goes for off-the-shelf products you buy at places such well known computer stores. Did you ever wonder why some companies seem to get better spots for their products than others?

In the early 90's, we (a small startup company...now defunct) were going to bring a product to market for sale in a large computer store. At the time, to get our shrink-wrapped product into consumer's hands, the only place to sell it was in the large computer store chains - the internet was just starting to take off and most people didn't buy online.

The price at the time was about $250,000 year for a decent spot on the shelf - more if we wanted a highly visible end spot. Our business plan had us breaking even around year 5. You do the math. For a small, 2 man startup, that was some serious cash even before we factored in paying ourselves and making a living.

Perhaps, today, the prices have gone down due to competition from online stores. But, at the time, it was THE only way to go.

RD

Re:This is plain stupid.

[tomhudson]

But stores DO charge Coke a fee for "shelf face space" and/or "product presentation".

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.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[squiggleslash]

It's more the case of (to use your example) Ford outbidding Mazda for the advertising space on their name. You search for Mazda and up comes Ford.

I honestly don't think Mazda would mind...

Anyway, I still don't see the issue with respect to Google. You can't buy "all the advertising space" related to your rival with Google, all you can do is have it so your advertising comes up if you search for that rival.

From the point of view of an end user, this is far from evil or misleading. This isn't about people trying to pass themselves off as a company, it's simply marketing to people interested in a particular product. If I search for "Biro", the chances are I want a pen. If I'm searching for something specific to Biro (like "How do I contact them about repairing this pen"), then the relevent links will appear on the left, as always. If I'm looking to buy a biro, then I'll be interested in the unobtrusive links on the right from companies that feel I may be interested in their product. Maybe I would prefer a Parker. Maybe I want to buy the Biro from WHSmiths.

I think the fairest comparison is actually Parker Pens going to a newspaper and saying "When you next do a story concerning Biros, can you put our ad next to it?"

That shouldn't be considered trademark infringment, and it's certainly not evil business practices. Trademarks were intended as a way to guarantee against fraud, as one group passing its products off as the other's. It strikes me that the laws here are being taken to go far beyond that remit, to the point that it threatens speech instead. If they carry on this way, just as the DMCA is undermining the legitimacy of copyright, and software patents the legitimacy of the patent system, they risk undermining trademarks too. Legislatures need to intervene and stop this abuse.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[h4rm0ny]

I've already answered this below (both typing at the same time, I guess), but as this is directed at me, I'll just make two points.

There is a finite amount of ad space, you're wrong in this. The space is limited by the readers attention span. Probably the first few entries count, maybe the whole page if she's really doing comparison shopping. At most though, seven or eight little google ads are going to be looked at. The issue is whether someone else can use your own name for advertising against you.

My second point, and the main reason for replying, is that you've either misunderstood me or deliberately misinterpreted what I said. I never said that Microsoft should or shouldn't be allowed to advertise in Linux Magazine. I just thought this was a better analogy for people who don't RTFA than using the word Mazda in a small ad selling a Mazda, which is not the same principle at all.

All that I did in fact, was clarify the issue for people who might have been misled and said their were interesting issues to think about. Contrary to what you say - "advertising - it's the nature of the beast" - we together can decide the nature of that beast; it isn't set in stone. You will find that as of today, advertising is a slightly different beast in Europe than it is in the USA.

You can see my other post for my thoughts on which beast suits society the best.

(And for the record, MS can advertise in Linux Magazine all they like - it's probably the biggest admission of fear they could ever make ;)

Re:This is plain stupid.

[Qzukk]

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.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[jdc180]

Imagine the stores creating an Isle named Coke. The store advertises the isle as coke, plasters it all over the entrance to the isle. Then offers the isle up for sale. That's what's at issue here, the fact that Google offered up the trademarked name Louis Vitton for sale to the highest bidder.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[Tassach]

So all Google has to do is change a couple lines of code so that the search term "louis vuiton" is ignored, just like it ignores "as", "the", etc.

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.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[tonsofpcs]

I think the real issue here, is that in some countries, you can use a competitors trademark for comparisons, or if you are a retail store, you can simply use the trademarks of items that you sell in your advertising, in other countries, you cannot use trademarks at all without consent.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[Guppy06]

Their responsibility to shareholders also means they have to try to be on top of the search engine world. If they start removing certain terms at their whim, it means their search results may not be as complete as their comptetitors.

Besides, imagine the rioting in the streets if we took your post and replaced all instances of "Google" with "Microsoft."

Re:This is plain stupid.

[tomhudson]

First - I'm not from the US (though I had to go down there 4 times a couple of weeks ago).

Second - as another poster pointed out, it's perfectly legal in France to mention competitors in ads, but it hasn't been done until recently.

Third: the article is bullshit. Look at this quote:

"This milestone ruling grants protection for the first time to both consumers and brand owners by finding that Google's Adwords and Premium Sponsorship services as misleading advertising services," the representative added.

How is restricting letting consumers find competitors a "protection to consumers"? It's a boot heel on their neck, by brand owners over-extending their "rights" to help stifle competition, that same competition which is what really benefits consumers.

Fourth: Misleading advertising? The ads were clearly labeled as ads. And, unlike most media, where you have to "contact their media department", google's policies are a click away.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[Maestro4k]

• 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.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[KinkifyTheNation]

So all Microsoft has to do is change a couple lines of code...

I think you see the problem with that.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:This is plain stupid.

[Weirdofreak]

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.

It sort of makes sense...

[agraupe]

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?

Re:It sort of makes sense...

[JesusQuintana]

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.

Re:It sort of makes sense...

[notque]

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?

Don't worry Google...

[dnaboy]

Pedro offers you his protection

or CNN:Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand

[free2]

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq. regime.change/

I dont see a diffenence

[bird603568]

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

Re:I dont see a diffenence

[Anonymous Coward]

What is different about this is that this is a european ruling. In Europe nobody is allowed to use his/hers competiotor's trademarks in commercials or any aother communication. You will never see or hear (eg.) "McDonalds" in a Burger King commercial.

Re:I dont see a diffenence

[LadyLucky]

Note that such commercials are not possible in many parts of the world. Here in NZ, you can't use comparative advertising like that. Of course they still try in more subtle ways, but you can't do it outright.

Unfair Ruling

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

From the article: The court charged Google with trademark counterfeiting, unfair competition and misleading advertising.

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.

Re:Unfair Ruling

[bersl2]

I thought France had a relatively free market?

Choice quote from Wikipedia entry "Economy of France": Government spending, at 53% of GDP in 2000, is the highest in the G-7.

Usually, that's indicative of a planned economy.

You mean,

[lysium]

How could you ever expect a fair rulling from them?

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.

Versus Billboards

[dominator]

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.

Re:Versus Billboards

[Frisky070802]

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.

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.

Re:Versus Billboards

[dominator]

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.

Importantly, nothing gets intercepted, because the main search results still go through to Geico. What's added is a small annotation saying that if you're interested in Geico, you might want to check out State Farm instead.

If rulings like this stand, I think the next rung of lawsuits against search engines happens when Geico isn't the first search hit for "Geico" or if "State Farm" shows up second on the search results page. [tongue-in-cheek]Brand Confusion, I tell you![/tongue-in-cheek] At least in the current case, "State Farm" is marked as an advertisement and displayed *distinctly* from the main results.

What else would rulings like this ban? Miller ads that say - "half the carbs of Bud light" Or "Aleve lasts twice as long as Tylenol"? Comparitive advertisement is a cornerstone of the US marketplace. I understand that it is much less so (if not altogether verboten) in Europe.

In any case, whatever you want to call this, it ain't TM infringement.

Re:Versus Billboards

[DirePickle]

It's more like looking up a company in the yellow pages, and finding competitors' ads right next to it.

Re:Versus Billboards

[PxM]

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.

Except that a phone intercept prevents the person from talking to Geico. This would be more like the Time magazine have an ad in Newsweek or cable providers carries ads for satellite TV. Neither interferes with the customer's ability to achieve their original goal.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Wired article as proof

Re:Versus Billboards

[St. Arbirix]

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.

It's probably more like an advert on a train timed to show off State Farm ads when the train is pulling up to the Geico stops. The ads can be ignored.

I think the bigger factor here is that Google was bringing to France foreign competition to French companies. As protectionist as much of their government has been lately the simplest explanation is that their judicial system is the same.

Stupid!

[hanssprudel]

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!

Re:Stupid!

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually it is both -- trademarks mainly exist to protect customers, but there is also a recognition that it is not a fair trade practice for one company to leech off of the goodwill in the minds of the public that another company has accumulated.

Re:Rumsfeld and Hussein

[Marc2k]

And, just to make things clear, in the 1980s, the US had tremendously favorable relations with Iraq.

Now I don't entirely understand this..

[EMIce]

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.

just remove them

[PerlDudeXL]

Google could remove ads + indexed pages. Those who sue Google are not worth it to be found ;)

Re:Screw France

[nkh]

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.

lets see who's laughing

[dasMeanYogurt]

when google takes them out of their search results. After all why risk another lawsuit when someone else will gladly take those hits.

you must not be from the US

[way2trivial]

in some countries I know, they have anti-competitor clauses for advertising.. pepsi CANNOT show a coke can in a pepsi commercial, in the US, this is allowed, and common, "4 out of five people prefer the taste of pepsi free to diet coke" while someone is spraying a mouthful of diet coke onto the ground, then the announcer says "and we aren't so sure of the fifth"

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?

Re:Screw France

[Richie1984]

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.

international vs national

[way2trivial]

some things are still permitted in the US that are not elsewhere.

comparative advertising being one of them

Re:international vs national

[nkh]

comparative advertising being one of them

Comparative advertising IS allowed in France (but most companies are too scared to use it). That's why I don't think it's relevant here.

Re:international vs national

[rice_burners_suck]

some things are still permitted in the US that are not elsewhere.

I really think that nothing should be allowed, anywhere. The government should tell each of us exactly how to live our lives. What to do. How to do it. When to do it. When to wake up in the morning. When to go to sleep. When to go to the bathroom. And the government should monitor each of these things so that even the slightest deviation from the government's plans will allow the government to come after you and apply the penalty of death by removal of the head, without the inconvenience of a trial and other administrative problems (from the government's perspective).

not search engines

[way2trivial]

advertisers.

it's the for profit advertising that violates french law.

In france, where they have an office.

Most People Can't The Difference

[Changer2002]

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.

Re:Most People Can't The Difference

[Changer2002]

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.

The real reason this is stupid

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Sillyness

[notque]

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.

Revenge of the French

[wxyze]

I'm sure France is just getting back at Google for this: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.htm l .

The Difference

[Changer2002]

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.

why too scared?

[way2trivial]

barely legal.
http://www.chaillot.com/En/pages/p9.html
" 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."

so, google crossed the line.

Who's the real idiot?

[ThreeDayMonk]

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.

You can be sued for anything and nothing

[erroneus]

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.

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. ... but oh well...)

Re:Microsoft buys "Linux": An interesting parallel

[geekoid]

"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.

Extremely misleading translation.

[Anne Honime]

Forewords : I am a french lawyer.

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.

Re:Extremely misleading translation.

[gronofer]

This is interesting. But in this case, is it reasonable to hold Google responsible for this violation of French law? Google provides an automated system where others can pay to have ads attached to particular search results. I would have expected whoever commissioned the ad to be responsible in this case and not Google.

I am not sure what the consequences of this decision will be for Google. Must they now maintain a list of every trademark registered in France (I suppose there will be millions) and apply personal judgement on whether a particular advertisement would be acceptable? This would completely destroy their business model, and without a business model, why bother to provide a search engine to the French?

When you say "we don't care", who are you speaking for exactly? The average Internet user in France, or French lawyers?

Re:Extremely misleading translation.

[Anne Honime]

So if I'm at a restaurant in France and I ask for a Coke, and the waitress says "Is Pepsi ok?" the restaurant could be liable ?

It depends ; if they have both, yes ; if they have an exclusive contract with pepsi, no.

This in fact is not as impossible as it may sound ; I know first hand someone who happened to be caught in a situation of this kind ; on his first arrival in Paris, he took the phone and asked the YP for a Taxi company number. He was told that they weren't allowed to choose one on his behalf. So he said, whatever, give me all companies numbers ! The reply was : there are 3 of them, and we can only give two phone numbers per call...

Re:Extremely misleading translation.

[Anne Honime]

You're being misleaded by translation ; when you see "the judge" in a law, actually it means you've got to refer to the Code of juridictions organisation to know the composition of the court. It can range from one individual to a popular jury of 12 + 3 professional judges. That's because we hate rewriting every text anytime a change occur. Court of one judge are extremely scarce, and can never put one's liberty in jeopardy alone. It's only grammar.

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 ?

Shunning.

[ninejaguar]

What do I suggest to stop this sort of sillyness ? Anyone who goes after google like this should quite simply have their pages removed from the index. "Got a problem with our system? then you dont need to be in it, goodbye". Now THAT is a strong deterrent. Those whiny bastards would think twice.

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 =

Change your sunglasses

[RancidPickle]

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.

Re:Microsoft buys "Linux": An interesting parallel

[spitzak]

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.

Think about it

[mynameismonkey]

"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.

Why is Louis Vuitton acting unethically?

[Jamesday]

It should work in exactly the manner you've said is wrong. If Ford pretends to be selling Toyota cars, that would be a passing off problem but that's not what is happening here. The ads are correctly describing what is being sold and the trademark is used solely to ensure that the ads appear in their correct position, adjacent to the intended search results. Not replacing them, but adjacent to them.

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.

Typical: Attacking the biggest, not the guiltiest

[DunbarTheInept]

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.

louis vuiton fashion, louis vuiton clothes, bags

[NigelJohnstone]

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.

Re:It will keep ad prices low.

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:louis vuiton fashion, louis vuiton clothes, bag

[NigelJohnstone]

"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.

Trademarks are divided into classes, but...

[Christian Engstrom]

"louis vuiton" don't have trademark rights over that name, they have it over that name in the context of bags, fashion, perfume.

For a normal trademark, what you say is correct. Trademarks are divided into 45 different classes of goods and services. The system is called the "Nice Classification", since the original version of it was agreed on at some conference in Nice, France. This system is nowadays used in almost all countries in the world.

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.