Slashdot Mirror
French Court Orders Google to Stop Competing Ad Displays
charleste writes "NPR is reporting that a French court has ordered Google to stop displaying ads when users search for competitors (e.g. if you search for Louis Vuitton, no more ads for Dior). If this holds up, wouldn't this affect most business models for free web tools?" CNET also has details , and information about previous cases.
Both lawsuits have hinged on Google's signature keyword-advertising system, Adwords, which pairs text ads with related search results. For example, a Nike ad appears after a search for running shoes. Through the system, Google allows marketers to bid for such search-related keywords, including common branded and trademarked terms.
Louis Vuitton applauded the ruling, highlighting the danger that some sponsored search results tied to its name can promote counterfeits. "It was absolutely unthinkable that a company like Google be authorized, in the scope of its advertising business, to sell the Louis Vuitton trademark to third parties, specifically to Web sites selling counterfeits," a company representative said in a statement via e-mail.
So Google was allowing other companies to bid on extremely vague search terms that display ads for companies related and somehow Vuitton thinks thats dangerous?
Give me a break. Make your product superior to the others and people will see the alternative and buy yours. I'm sorry if the "counterfeits" will end up beating you out. Maybe yours isn't worth 100x as much as theirs just because of your name.
Personally I don't even see the ads. They are there but they are in the corner of my eye. I have certainly never clicked on one and I don't know of anyone who has. Get over it.
French courts ruled against Yahoo!, and Yahoo! told them to shove it. The U.S. also gave Yahoo! the green light. It is quite ridiculous for the French to stifle competition. If people do not like it, they do not have to use Google. I do not hear many people, besides the French gov't. complaining. Do the French people, themselves, feel this way?
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
What does French authority have over Google? What if Zimbabwe issued an order that Google do something? Or what about my grandmother? If Google doesn't comply, what authority does France have to sanction Google?
God spoke to me.
This is moronic. Who's to say who's a competitor? Doesn't this invite all sorts of abuse by corporations who lack morals ( ie: all of them )?
*rubs temples*
I understand this is a "new" technology, and I appreciate how much catch up judges have to make effective rulings, but this indicates to me that they don't grasp how things work.
Maybe the court transcripts reveal more than the simple blurb. Perhaps there's simply more to this than the article suggests.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Will it be illegal for M$ to push "how to migrate from linux to windows" in their sponsored results @ msn search?
February 13, 2004
l e. shtml
Google bans ads that criticize cruise ships
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAN FRANCISCO - Online search engine leader Google has banned the ads of an environmental group protesting a major cruise line's sewage treatment methods, casting a spotlight on the editorial policies that control the popular Web site's lucrative marketing program.
Jim Ayers, Pacific Region director for Oceana, said from his Juneau home that he was shocked that Google would censor his group's ads based on corporate bias.
Washington D.C.-based Oceana said Google dropped the text-based ads displayed in shaded boxes along the right side of its Web page because they were critical of Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines.
http://juneauempire.com/stories/021304/sta_goog
There's no reason why Google should have to take this kind of abuse.
They should shut down google.fr (but keep control of the domain name so no one takes it over), and maybe even block French IPs from accessing the rest of Google.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
"Since Google's normal ad service has been declared illegal in France, Google will cease such activities in France. The most technically feasible method of doing this is to make Google's service inaccessible from all IP netblocks assigned to the geographic area of France and any entities based in France who, were they to access Google, would do so under the aegis of French law. In addition we will no longer be accepting ad placement from companies where the transaction would be governed by French law."
If I go to a store and ask for "Louis Vuitton" is it trademark infringement if the sales person also shows me Dior or some other maker's products? I would argue that as long as Google's ads do not mislead the user into thinking that the link is for "Louis Vuitton" then it is no different than a store clerk showing me a competing good.
All Google is doing is recognizing that people use specific terms to represent generic actions. I may search for "Louis Vuitton" but really intend to look at luxury goods of a wide range of makers -- the trademark name is only being used to find hits in the category. As long as the ads don't pretend to offer something they don't (bait and switch), I would argue that Google is serving the purpose of search.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
There is a precedent for this- Yahoo was ordered by a French court to ban Nazi memorabilia from their auctions. These decisions only affect users within the jurisdiction of the law, so only users who can be verified as being in France will not see ads for competitors.
FYI, Amanzon has a 'sponsored links' section that is keyed off search terms.
I think it would depend on the location of the servers which gave out the information.
However If I worked for google and was a nasty person I would ensure that if you entered the search term you wouldn't get any results for the correct company after that sort of ruling.
I mean it's not as if they were passing off the one company as another (which trademark covers).
It was merely giving the surfers an alternative.
So wouldn't this ruling actually be classed as anti competetive behaviour, heaven forbid that in the search results a different company was listed instead of theirs.
No, this is like an ad for Dior being placed next to a Vuitton display.
Here's a true story. I posted this in another article, but I'll post it here for posterity: a few miles from where I live, there's a Ford (or Toyota, I can't remember which) dealership. Right next to it is a billboard advertising another Ford (again, or Toyota) dealership, with the text "Drive a few extra miles and save". It's the same exact type of thing as the situation with Google--this sign even plays on the fact that it's right next to a competing dealership selling the same models.
It's perfectly legal and no different than the situation with Google.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Here is my main issue with this judgement.
I, as a consumer frequently SERACH FOR competitors of known brands. Often i am looking to see what the market is because i am dis-satisfied with the brand i am familiar with. Putting in search terms such as "geico competitors" you will not get any relevant listings.
I found the most effective means of finding other product offerings in a related market is by simply looking through the ad placements on google when searching simply for the brand name i recognize.
By ordering google to stop disaplying compeitotrs ads, they have effectivly denied me any solid capability to find out about what competing products there are in the marketplace, hence hindering compitition, and promoting monopolistic control.
It is a terrible day when trademark protection extends as far as information services. Will they make it illegal to place ads for comepting companies next to each other in newspapers? Will they make it illegal to place gap ads next to macys ads on Television?
This is a ridulous abuse of governance that only hinders the tax-paying public, and stifles economic growth through compitiion, as well as inovation amogst service providers.
Amazing. Whats next.... patents on 1's and 0's ??!!
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
They should go all out. Now when someone in France searches for Dior, they get only one result, Dior's site along with a note to contact their government to complain if they don't like it.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
If I were in charge of Google, I'd just block French IPs from connecting. That saves them the effort of redoing their ad system and it would place a lot of pressure on the France to overrule this court decision.
What is the scope of this judgement rendered by a French court against an American company? What is the impact outside of France? What constitutes a French company?
1) Does this only apply if one is using www.google.fr?
2) What if you are a German citizen using www.google.com from Italy looking for local solutions? If the company you seek has an office in France, does that mean Google is barred from showing you Italian competitors?
Over the last summer I was managing an adwords campaign for a small art gallery. When we noticed that entering in our gallery name came up with an adwords ad for a competing gallery whom we had never heard of, I was tasked with finding out how to fix this. We considered suing the other gallery, suing whoever else we could (this was in LA, mind you), or my solution: have Google fix it. I emailed the Google support folks and they responded saying basically that we should just deal with it ourselves and they can't do anything to take those ads away. So, I wrote a nice email to the competing gallery explaining my issue. The next day, no more ad! Since this is small-time compared to the big companies involved here, I don't know if this situation applies, but who knows... Maybe I should have sued Google so I can pay off my college bills :)
When I go to the grocery store, there is printer next to the cash register. Companies can pay the store to print me coupons for their product when I buy a competitor's product.
Is this illegal in France?
This is the basic mode for opening new stores for these two chains - find out where a reasonably well run drug store or bake shop is with plenty of traffic, then open up a block away. Usually buries the competitor in a matter of months. Perfectly legal.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Does this mean they'll also require the French Yellow Pages to list only one business per page, with the opposing page blanked out, so as not to see the competition?
- R
"Yahoo was ordered by a French court to ban Nazi memorabilia from their auctions."
That's only to hide the shame of collaboration through the Vichy government. France is stained forever.
Trivia: Did you know the first action in WW2 for U.S. Troops were against French Troops in North Africa?
And after we'd whipped the French's ass, they refused to concede because they were afraid the Nazi's would be angry with them.
Absolutely true. I invite you to do some reading.
Correct statement, bad analogy.
Company B is NOT using Company A in its advertisement. It is simply defining "location" by the terms. In your analogy B is putting the trademark within the ad and USING it.
A better analogy would be if B went to an advertising agency that handles ad placements on billboards, and says "put me next to as many Company A locations as possible". The ad agency searches their databases finds Company A's locations (which would be equiv to search terms in this realm) and places Company B's ads there. No trademark infringement.
The knock-offs, as you put it, are not USING the term in their ad. They are simply asking Google to place THEIR ad in a "location" as defined by search terms within the virtual world of search engine web browsing.
-Alex