Google v. Louis Vuitton

Last updated
Google v. Louis Vuitton
European stars.svg
European Court of Justice
Submitted 3 June 2008
Decided 23 March 2010
Full case name Google France SARL and Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA
CaseC-236/08
ECLI ECLI:EU:C:2010:159
Case typeReference for a preliminary ruling
ChamberGrand Chamber
Ruling
Search engine operators do not infringe trademark rights if they allow advertisers to use a competitor's trademark as a keyword
Court composition
Judge-Rapporteur
M. Ilešič
President
V. Skouris
Advocate General
Miguel Poiares Maduro

Google France SARL and Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08), also known as Google v. Louis Vuitton was a landmark decision in which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that search engines operators such as Google do not themselves infringe trademark rights if they allow advertisers to use a competitor's trademark as a keyword.

Contents

Facts

Vuitton has the Community trademark 'Vuitton' as well as the French trademarks 'Louis Vuitton' and 'LV'. These are widely accepted for having a well-renowned reputation.

In 2003, Vuitton detected that if internet users entered his trademark terms into Google's search engine, they would be directed to websites selling imitations of Vuitton's products, under the heading of 'sponsored links'.

Additionally, Google enabled the advertisers to use simultaneously with Vuitton's trademarks, expressions suggesting counterfeit products, such as 'imitation' and 'copy'. Thus, Vuitton brought a proceeding against Google, attempting to ascertain that it had infringed Vuitton's trademarks.

In 2005, the Regional Court of Paris rendered a decision determining that Google was guilty due to the infringement of Vuitton's trademarks. Subsequently, on appeal, the Court of appeal in Paris, confirmed the same outcome.

However, Google brought an appeal on a point of law to the Cassation court against the last judgement. Consequently, the French Court of Cassation stayed the proceedings and asked the CJEU for further clarification on certain aspects essential to decide the case. Thus, it referred the following questions for a preliminary ruling: [1]

1. Must Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of [Directive 89/104] and Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of [Regulation No 40/94] be interpreted as meaning that a provider of a paid referencing service who makes available to advertisers keywords reproducing or imitating registered trademarks and arranges by the referencing agreement to create and favourably display, on the basis of those keywords, advertising links to sites offering infringing goods is using those trademarks in a manner which their proprietor is entitled to prevent?

2. In the event that the trademarks have a reputation, may the proprietor oppose such use under Article 5(2) of [Directive 89/104] and Article 9(1)(c) of [Regulation No 40/94]?

3. In the event that such use does not constitute a use which may be prevented by the trademark proprietor under [Directive 89/104] or [Regulation No 40/94], may the provider of the paid referencing service be regarded as providing an information society service consisting of the storage of information provided by the recipient of the service, within the meaning of Article 14 of [Directive 2000/31], so that that provider cannot incur liability until it has been notified by the trademark proprietor of the unlawful use of the sign by the advertiser?

Judgement

The Court found that signs corresponding to trademarks were used in an internet referencing service through the usage of keywords, without consent of the trademark proprietors. Such keywords were chosen and accepted by clients of the referencing service provider. The Court found that Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 40/94 allow proprietors of trade marks to prohibit any third parties from using signs identical or similar to their trademarks for goods or services. This triggers viewing of advertising links which display goods identical to those registered under protected trade marks. The Court interprets that this triggering falls under the scope of the overall scheme of Directive 89/104 and as such affects the functions of the trademark. As such, it held that by application of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 and Article (9)(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/95, the proprietor of a trademark can prohibit a third party from using signs identical to the trade mark in use in the course of trade of similar goods, namely through the use of keywords in a referencing service provider.

The use of keywords is considered to affect the course of trade. In the words of the Court:

From the advertiser's point of view, the selection of a keyword identical with a trademark has the object and effect of displaying an advertising link to the site on which he offers his goods or services for sale. Since the sign selected as a keyword is the means used to trigger that ad display, it cannot be disputed that the advertiser indeed uses it in the context of commercial activity and not as a private matter. With regard, next, to the referencing service provider, it is common ground that it is carrying out a commercial activity with a view to economic advantage when it stores as keywords, for certain of its clients, signs which are identical with trademarks and arranges for the display of ads on the basis of those keywords.

The Court concludes on a first instance that a referencing system is not necessarily involved in use in the course of trade according to the wording of Directive 89/104. However, its relation to the trademarked products can be established through a "relation to goods or services", as Vuitton's trade marks appeared in advertisements under a heading of" sponsored links". Although Google stated that in the absence of the mention of a sign in the actual ad no trademark rights were being violated, the Court held that the list in the Directive should be incorporated as to include modern electronic commerce and that, in that context, referencing service providers allow advertisers to choose identical signs as keywords in order to invite internet users to enter words as search terms to then click the links displayed and also the advertising links. If these sponsored links are provided above the regular list of results, internet users are more likely to click them, as they are listed first, as alternatives to the original Vuitton bags. [68] As such, it follows that the use by an advertiser of a sign identical with a trademark as a keyword falls within the concept of use "in relation to goods or services".

The Court concluded by stating that Louis Vuitton has the right to prohibit an advertiser from advertising on Google by using keywords identical with its trademark without their consent. However, "an internet referencing service provider which stores, as a keyword, a sign identical with a trade mark and organises the display of advertisements on the basis of that keyword does not use that sign within the meaning of Directive 89/104 and Regulation No 40/95." The conclusion of the Court's judgement relied on the concept of "active role" of the internet referencing service provider, regarding "knowledge or control over the data store. If the internet servicing provider has not played such a role, than it cannot be held liable for the data which it has stored at the request of an advertiser, unless it failed to act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the data concerned." [2]

Substance

Pierro Gode (vice-president at LVMH), considers that "This decision represents a critical step towards the clarification of the rules governing online advertising, of which LVMH is one of the foremost clients. "As the world's leading luxury group, with more brands actively engaged with the internet than any other luxury company, we are committed to working with all parties, including Google, to eradicate illicit online practices and to promote a framework that fosters the continued growth of the digital economy." [3]

Fiona McBride, trademark lawyer at Withers & Rogers, described the ECJ ruling about the origin of an ad as "perplexing". She said it seemed to be unnecessarily introducing "a requirement of element or doubt as to the origin of goods and services which is not relevant for determining the infringement of a registered trademark". "This is a setback for brand owners and seriously limits the scope of their trade mark rights when it comes to challenging use of their trade marks in online advertising," added McBride. "Only rarely will the internet user be unable to ascertain the origin of the goods and services and it will therefore be easy for advertisers to circumvent the law and use third party trademarks as keywords. This means that advertisers can secure a commercial advantage by piggy-backing on the reputation of the trademarks." [4]

The issues arising on whether the facts of this case constitute a trademark infringement are debatable amongst the national European courts regarding operator responsibility for comparative trademark use. But the issue itself, in the perspective of advocate-general Miguel Poiares Maduro poses no real issue, as he previously stated that "Google has not committed a trademark infringement by allowing advertisers to select, in AdWords, keywords corresponding to trademarks." [5] He considers that the use of the algorithm that creates and organizes Googles advertising "cannot therefore be considered as being a use made in relation to goods or services identical or similar to those covered by the trademarks. Similarly, advertisers themselves do not commit a trademark infringement by selecting in Adwords keywords corresponding to trademarks," and in no way should it be construed that due to the fact that Google displays certain types of advertisement when a specific search term is inputted it means that it wants to affect companies sales. Users are fully aware that several search results will be presented outside of the owner of the Trademark, and the customers will make an assessment of the origins of the product and consequently their purchase decision on the content of the website rather than on the display of the ad.

See also


Related Research Articles

Affiliate marketing is a marketing arrangement in which affiliates receive a commission for each visit, signup or sale they generate for a merchant. This arrangement allows businesses to outsource part of the sales process. It is a form of performance-based marketing where the commission acts as an incentive for the affiliate; this commission is usually a percentage of the price of the product being sold, but can also be a flat rate per referral.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Google Ads</span> Online advertising platform owned by Google

Google Ads is an online advertising platform developed by Google, where advertisers bid to display brief advertisements, service offerings, product listings, and videos to web users. It can place ads in the results of search engines like Google Search, mobile apps, videos, and on non-search websites. Services are offered under a pay-per-click (PPC) pricing model.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trade Marks Act 1994</span> Law governing trade marks

The Trade Marks Act 1994 is the law governing trade marks within the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. It implements EU Directive No. 89/104/EEC which forms the framework for the trade mark laws of all EU member states, and replaced an earlier law, the Trade Marks Act 1938. Although the UK's trade mark regime covers the Isle of Man, it does not extend to the Channel Islands which have their own trade mark registers.

Pay-per-click (PPC) is an internet advertising model used to drive traffic to websites, in which an advertiser pays a publisher when the ad is clicked.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom trade mark law</span> United Kingdom legislation

United Kingdom trade mark law provides protection for the use of trade marks in the UK. A trade mark is a way for one party to distinguish themselves from another. In the business world, a trade mark provides a product or organisation with an identity which cannot be imitated by its competitors.

Online advertising, also known as online marketing, Internet advertising, digital advertising or web advertising, is a form of marketing and advertising that uses the Internet to promote products and services to audiences and platform users. Online advertising includes email marketing, search engine marketing (SEM), social media marketing, many types of display advertising, and mobile advertising. Advertisements are increasingly being delivered via automated software systems operating across multiple websites, media services and platforms, known as programmatic advertising.

Search engine marketing (SEM) is a form of Internet marketing that involves the promotion of websites by increasing their visibility in search engine results pages (SERPs) primarily through paid advertising. SEM may incorporate search engine optimization (SEO), which adjusts or rewrites website content and site architecture to achieve a higher ranking in search engine results pages to enhance pay per click (PPC) listings and increase the Call to action (CTA) on the website.

Keyword advertising is a form of online advertising in which an advertiser pays to have an advertisement appear in the results listing when a person uses a particular phrase to search the Web, typically by employing a search engine. The particular phrase is composed of one or more key terms that are linked to one or more advertisements. The most common form or keyword advertising, focused on payment methods, is pay per click (PPC), with other forms being cost per action (CPA) or cost per mille (CPM).

In Internet marketing, search advertising is a method of placing online advertisements on web pages that show results from search engine queries. Through the same search-engine advertising services, ads can also be placed on Web pages with other published content.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electronic registration mark</span> Proposed category of trademark

An electronic registration mark is a proposed category of trademark that would restrict the use of trademarked words and phrases in online advertising.

Comparative advertising, or combative advertising, is an advertisement in which a particular product, or service, specifically mentions a competitor by name for the express purpose of showing why the competitor is inferior to the product naming it. Also referred to as "knocking copy", it is loosely defined as advertising where "the advertised brand is explicitly compared with one or more competing brands and the comparison is obvious to the audience". An advertising war is said to be occurring when competing products or services exchange comparative or combative advertisements mentioning each other.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark</span> Trade identifier of products or services

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies a product or service from a particular source and distinguishes it from others. A trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.

In copyright law, the legal status of hyperlinking and that of framing concern how courts address two different but related Web technologies. In large part, the legal issues concern use of these technologies to create or facilitate public access to proprietary media content — such as portions of commercial websites. When hyperlinking and framing have the effect of distributing, and creating routes for the distribution of content (information) that does not come from the proprietors of the Web pages affected by these practices, the proprietors often seek the aid of courts to suppress the conduct, particularly when the effect of the conduct is to disrupt or circumvent the proprietors' mechanisms for receiving financial compensation.

<i>Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.</i> Legal case

Google, Inc. v. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Inc., No. 5:03-cv-05340, was a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The court concluded that, pending the outcome of a jury trial, Google AdWords may be in violation of trademark law because it (1) allowed arbitrary advertisers to key their ads to American Blind's trademarks and (2) may confuse search-engine users initially interested in visiting American Blind's website into visiting its competitors' websites.

<i>Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.</i> American legal case

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. 562 F.3d 123, was a case at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in which the court held that recommending a trademark for keyword advertising was a commercial use of the trademark, and could constitute trademark infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark infringement</span> Violation of trademark rights

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, especially in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.

Arsenal Football Club vs. Matthew Reed is a trademark infringement case concerning the sale of unlicensed Arsenal Football Club merchandise.

<i>Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.</i> Court case decided on March 8, 2011

Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137 was a court case decided on March 8, 2011, where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the use of a competitor's trademark as an Internet search advertising keyword did not constitute trademark infringement. In the case, Network Automation advertised their own competing product in search queries that contained Advanced Systems Concepts' "ActiveBatch" trademark. In determining whether trademark infringement occurred, the court evaluated factors relevant to the likelihood of customer confusion outlined in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats and concluded that confusion was unlikely.

<i>Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc.</i> American legal case

Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. 600 F.3d 93, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which plaintiff Tiffany & Co. filed the complaint, first in 2004, alleging that eBay constituted direct and contributory trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising since it facilitated and advertised counterfeit Tiffany jewelries on its online market. On July 14, 2008, the District Court for S. D. N. Y. decided in favor of eBay on all claims. Tiffany appealed these decisions to the Second Circuit. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court with respect to the claims of trademark infringement and dilution. The false advertising claim was returned to the district court for further processing, which was then ruled in favor of eBay.

<i>Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.</i> U.S. court decision

Rosetta Stone v. Google, 676 F.3d 144 was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The Court overturned a grant of summary judgment for Google that had held Google AdWords was not a violation of trademark law.

References

  1. ↑ "CURIA – Documents". curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2018-05-21.
  2. ↑ "Ruling of Case C-236/08 CURIA – Documents". curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2018-05-21.
  3. ↑ Wray, Richard (2010-03-23). "Google triumphs in Louis Vuitton trademark case". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-05-21.
  4. ↑ Sweney, Mark (2010-03-23). "Google wins Louis Vuitton trademark case". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-05-21.
  5. ↑ Kulk, Stefan (2011-07-01). "Search Engines Searching for Trouble? Comparing Search Engine Operator Responsibility for Competitive Keyword Advertising Under EU and US Trademark Law". Rochester, NY. SSRN   1911038.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.