Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Google Ruled a Trademark Infringer 537

Posted by CowboyNeal from the at-least-in-france dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Ruled a Trademark Infringer More

Google Ruled a Trademark Infringer

Comments Filter:

  • This is plain stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara,hudson&barbara-hudson,com> on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:35PM (#11582951) Journal
    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. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Moby Cock ( 771358 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:37PM (#11582964) Homepage
      Because they are making money of a trademark they don't own.

      It's not complicated.

      • Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara,hudson&barbara-hudson,com> on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:42PM (#11583005) Journal
        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. (Score:5, Informative)

          by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:47PM (#11583066) Journal

          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.


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

            The advertisements pruchased by competitors where clearly marked as such and on the sides.
            • A survey [go.com]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.
          • 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?


            • 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.

          • Replying to my own post - bad etiquette probably - but I've thought about this more and so long as they don't skew the actual search results then nothing hideously wrong has been done by skewing the advertising (through the bidding system). But it's a bit harsh to know that just by typing in your name, someone is going to be deluged with invitations from your much bigger rivals.

            You can see how good such a system is for Google however, as it means the big players are forced to bid competitively to secure

          • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @01:11PM (#11583269)
            Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @01:26PM (#11583375) Journal
          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.
      • It depends on EU law, and I assume based on Civil Law (e.g., Roman), not Common Law (e.g., Norman, (as in the England, US)).

        So yeah this sounds werid and hopefully they will appeal (and win) but every country has different laws. In Gemary I think you can't sell Door to Door (good-bye Avon), and in the US you can't show a women's breast(s) but men's are ok!!
    • Well so much for the idea that the EU legal system is free of dumb lawsuits.

  • It sort of makes sense... (Score:3, Informative)

    by agraupe ( 769778 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:37PM (#11582965) Journal
    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?
    • But who is infringing ? Google, or the competitor who actually used the trademark.

      Will google be sued too for META contents ??

      Of course LV sued Google, after all they surely have loads more money than its counterfit competitor
    • Would it be okay if a TV station let an advertiser infringe upon a trademark?

      No. That's why when you see adverts comparing products they always say "a leading brand" or words to that effect. Even when it's pretty obvious who "the leading brand" must be, such as in Pepsi adverts for example, you still don't see or hear a mention of any competitor's trademarks.

    • The competitors are not using anyone else's trademarks in their ads (as I understand it). Google is placing their ads in pages that use someone else's trademark.

      Like Chrysler buying ads in a TV program that mentions Ford. Is that illegal?

      (And by the way it has nothing to do with copyrights. This is about trademarks.)
    • 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 ill

    • 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

  • Don't worry Google... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dnaboy ( 569188 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:38PM (#11582971)
    Pedro offers you his protection

  • I dont see a diffenence (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bird603568 ( 808629 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:44PM (#11583027)
    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

  • Unfair Ruling (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TooMuchEspressoGuy ( 763203 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:45PM (#11583040)
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @01:10PM (#11583265) Journal
      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.
    • It's in France and this is an American company. They hate the players and the game in France.
      • It's in France and this is an American company. They hate the players and the game in France.

        They only hate the players because they are doing something they feel is wrong. They only hate the game because they beileve the game is wrong.

        If it's unfair, don't sell your products or allow French companies to use your search engine.

        There's no reason you are entitled to sell advertising when someone searches for another product.

  • Versus Billboards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dominator ( 61418 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:47PM (#11583057) Homepage
    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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Frisky070802 ( 591229 ) * on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:52PM (#11583108) Journal
      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dominator ( 61418 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @01:01PM (#11583196) Homepage
        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DirePickle ( 796986 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @01:38PM (#11583490)
        It's more like looking up a company in the yellow pages, and finding competitors' ads right next to it.
      • 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

  • Stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hanssprudel ( 323035 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:47PM (#11583060)
    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!
    • As long as the ads are clearly marked as being adds for somebody else (as they are on Google)

      Bullshit. Those ads are selling knock-off crap.
    • Agreed. Advertisers like to pretend their product is the only product in the universe. Notice how in a commercial the moment you see a logo, no matter how quickly or subliminally, you realize this must be a commercial for that product. It always is. Advertisers wouldn't think of mixing logos from different companies unless both companies were combing forces for a commercial.

      I understand why Louis-Vuitton would be unhappy with Google ads for competitors. They want to control their advertising environm

  • Now I don't entirely understand this.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EMIce ( 30092 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:49PM (#11583086) Homepage
    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 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PerlDudeXL ( 456021 ) <jens.luedicke@gmail.cTIGERom minus cat> on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:50PM (#11583093) Homepage
    Google could remove ads + indexed pages. Those who sue Google are not worth it to be found ;)

  • lets see who's laughing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dasMeanYogurt ( 627663 ) <texas,jake&gmail,com> on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:52PM (#11583112) Homepage
    when google takes them out of their search results. After all why risk another lawsuit when someone else will gladly take those hits.
    • when google takes them out of their search results. After all why risk another lawsuit when someone else will gladly take those hits.

      Good. Do that. That's Google's choice.

      Is this hard to understand?

      If you don't like the laws in a country, it's your choice to do something about it or not. Follow the laws, don't and be sued, or get out of the game.

      They are NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING.

  • It's those who bought the ads that should be liable, not Google.

    Google is just the medium by which the ads are distributed. If an ad has false information or infringes a trademark, hold the people who created and paid for the ad responsible, not the messenger who delivered the ad.
  • If (and I suspect that is a big if) Google is forced to comply with this extortion on the part of the French government, then Google should absolutely refuse to allow of their search engine or advertising services to anyone accessing their site from a .fr domain.
    What the French government doesn't quite seem to understand is that, in the information age, France is just another brand. And, a minor legacy historical empire one at that. Notwithstanding the fact that the government of France is the king of
    • yeah.. google would love that.. NOT.
      they want to do business in .fr.

      hell, google does business in PRC - making all kinds of compromises in order to be able to operate there.

  • The real reason this is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Saturday February 05, 2005 @01:16PM (#11583304) Homepage Journal

    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.


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

  • You can be sued for anything and nothing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @01:34PM (#11583453) Homepage
    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...)

  • Extremely misleading translation. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anne Honime ( 828246 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @01:46PM (#11583550)
    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.

  • Change your sunglasses (Score:5, Informative)

    by RancidPickle ( 160946 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @02:19PM (#11583764) Homepage
    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.

  • Typical: Attacking the biggest, not the guiltiest (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DunbarTheInept ( 764 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @03:46PM (#11584485) Homepage
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close