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.
Google Ruled a Trademark Infringer
Is going to determine and keep track of which companies are competitors? How the hell is anyone supposed to do that for every single company in existence?
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
The whole point of the judgement is that Dior (or any other company) couldn't buy adwords on Google targetting the search term 'Louis Vutton' or vice versa. Nothing to do with web tools or other such nonsenese. RTFJ!
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
How would France have the jurisdiction to affect the way an American company operates?
So does that mean Amazon shouldn't be showing what other books people who searched for a certain one also bought? They might be costing a sale of the original book if the add shows a book with similar content they chose instead if it.
Till they figure out that someone typing 'Goodyear' won't be able to see a 'Michelin' ad....
Pete and Repeat were sitting on a fence. Pete fell off. Who was left?
Repeat!
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
"The court ordered Google to stop displaying ads for competitors of Louis Vuitton" Don't worry, Google can still advertise competitors of other products.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Oddly enough, when I did a Google search for "French Riviera" I was offered ads for vacationing in Italy and Spain... touche!
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
You missed the point entirely. Google is allowing someone to buy "Vuitton" as a search term, and then permitting their competition or "counterfeits" to be displayed when the trademarked term is searched.
This has nothing to do with generic search terms.
What?
Crow T. Trollbot
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
Google doesn't have to stop returning search results of competitor's pages that mention the brand requested by the searches. They just have to stop returning ads purchased by those competitors when the brand is requested. This isn't so surprising: we'd be scandalized if you could just pay Google to return your website among the search results for your competitor. So the paid placement is separated into ads. But we'd also be suspicious if we asked a vendor of both Coke and Pepsi for a "Coke", and they offered us Pepsi instead, or even brought it up as an alternative in the transaction - even though they're entirely free to promote whichever product they stock. The entire issue is whether Google is diluting the association of the brand's unique mark by delivering its competitors with the same association. I'm not sure that just prohibiting mention in even clear ads is the answer. Maybe just returning an ad for the requested brand, prioritized among associated competitors who've purchased placement in clearly marked advertising separate from "non-ad" results. But as consumers, this ruling protects us from "you ask for this, and they give you that" bait & switch.
--
make install -not war
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.
I don't see whats unethical about this practice. It's called competition - it's not like they're picketing your business or something, they're creating a way for them to gain equal time in customer mindshare. More importantly, you're still ahead, because they're searching for *your* name, but your competitor has to pay to get his name out there. Trademark creep is just as annoying as all the other kinds of creep out there - it's supposed to ensure that you can do business under your mark without the risk of someone else masquerading as you. That's all, it's not supposed to be some sort of stick you can use to beat away competition.
No, it's not about "competitors", it's about "trademarks". So it's very simple, the French court basically says ads (not searches) can't be targetted at trademarks of another company. So other luggage makers (and especially, those cloning Vuitton) can't pay for their ads to come up on a search for Vuitton. (Though they might turn up in the search results.)
Except that as a consumer / web searcher when I search for "Louis Vuitton" (not that I have ever even heard of that brand) I *want* to see everything about it and everything like it.
... is just lame.
Seeing ads that are for direct and relevant competitors when searching for a trademarked term makes web searches more useful. Ok, perhaps the trademark holder should always get the first result - but preventing me from seeing competitor's adds
Next thing you know they are going to prevent sites that are critical of a brand from buying search terms - i.e. say some site has important dirt on Nike regarding child labor allegations - is it going to be illegal for that site to buy an adword to show up when someone searches for Nike?
Lame.
all the courts would have to do is respond to complaints - same way it works now.
At how many tens of thousands of dollars per complaint?
a bit unethical.
Ethical or not, its a near-impossible problem. Google would have to maintain a massive database of every potential competitor for every possible keyword. And then, if I search for "Anderson", whose ads are forbidden from showing up? Does the user want Anderson Accounting? Anderson Computers? Anderson Farms? Anderson Law Firm? Anderson & Samuel Law Firm? Anderson Anderson Anderson & Sons Law firm? You can bet if the wrong law firm showed up, they'd all be lined up to sue.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I think Louis Vuitton should not be suing Google, instead, it should be suing the companies who post the adwords that violate trademarks. For example, if Dior decides to have an advertisement appear when someone searches for "Louis Vuitton" then perhaps Louis Vuitton should sue Dior for infringing on their trademark.
If Dior put a full-page ad in New York Times encouraging people to buy Dior instead of Louis Vuitton, does that mean that the New York Times is responsible for violating the trademark, or would it be Dior?
1) block French people from using Google, blame government
2) Wait for people to overthrow said government
3) sell advertising indiscriminately, and profit.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The French courts seems to have the wrong impression that it has absolute jurisdiction over anything and everything on the net. Just like the Yahoo/Ebay/Nazi paraphernalia issue.
They especially don't have jurisdiction if Google does not have any legal business presence in France and they can't really do much to Google otherwise if Google were to refuse (provided Google has no future plans of opening up offices in France). The French don't censor the internet and since they don't have legal presence in France, it's a bit hard to fine them and expect payment. Plus the US courts are probably not going to help the French courts if Bush has anything to say about it, since I'm sure he holds a grudge against the French.
Man...all this reminds me of that one Halloween ep of the Simpsons. "AHAHAHAHA! No no no, in francias...OHOHOHOHOHOH"
"How else are you supposed to make informed buying decisions?"
What on earth does making informed decisions have to do with advertising? Advertising is the polar opposite of encouraging people to make informed decisions. The purpose of advertising is to encourage people to make UNINFORMED decisions.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I just checked. If you search google.fr for "Louis Vuitton" no ads are shown, while both google.com and google.co.uk display some ads.
So it seems google is complying with the court order using google.fr. It could be the case that nobody bought "Louis Vuitton" ads at google.fr, but that seems particularly unlikely as Louis Vuitton itself is a French company.
To play devil's advocate:
Company A starts selling a gadget that nobody knows about. It starts an expensive marketing campaign to show how it helps an average person in everyday life. People didn't know the product existed before, but are now very interested in the product.
Then they search for your creative, trademarked company name in google. Then they see an ad for company B (which cost company B $0.25). Company B is a factory outlet who has no marketing budget. The price from company B is half the price from company A because company A must recoup its marketing costs. Now the consumer buys from company B.
In this case it doesn't seem fair. Although the alternative (laws controlling advertising more) might be much worse.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
C'mon, you don't think Page and Brin could conquor France?
So, if I create a fast food restaurant called McDonalds, serving Big Macs and use all the same colors etc, you're okay with that?
As has already been explained, that would be performing trade under another company's mark, which is exactly (and only) what trademark should prevent.
But you want it to be illegal for me to tell my friend about a Burger King or Subway around the corner if he asks me where the nearest McDonalds is.