In an opinion delivered to the European Court of Justice, Advocate General Miguel
Poiares Poiares Maduro suggests that internet search engine Google has not committed
a trademark infringement by allowing advertisers to select keywords corresponding
to trademarks, although, if taken up by the full court, the opinion could leave
the door open to future challenges of Google's AdWords service.
Legal proceedings have been initiated in France against Google by a number
of trademark owners, including Louis Vuitton Malletier, as to the legality of
the use, in the Adwords advertising system, of keywords corresponding to trademarks, which can lead to the display of ads for sites offering counterfeit versions
of the products covered by the trademark or identical or similar products of
competitors.
The Cour de cassation in France has asked the Court of Justice whether Google
has committed a trademark infringement by making available such keywords to
advertisers and if the company can be held liable for the content featured in
AdWords.
In a favourable opinion for Google, the Advocate General noted that the use
of the trademarks is limited to the selection of keywords which is internal
to AdWords and concerns only Google and the advertisers. Therefore, when selecting
keywords, there is no product or service sold to the general public. "Such
a use cannot therefore be considered as being a use made in relation to goods
or services identical or similar to those covered by the trademarks,"
stated a summary of Poiares Maduro's opinion "Similarly, advertisers themselves
do not commit a trademark infringement by selecting in Adwords keywords corresponding
to trademarks."
While Google, by displaying ads in response to keywords corresponding to trademarks, establishes a link between those keywords and the sites advertised which
sell products identical or similar to those covered by the trademarks, the
Advocate General, whose opinion is not binding on the full Court of Justice,
finds that such a link also "does not constitute a trademark infringement."
"In effect, the mere display of relevant sites in response to keywords
is not enough to establish a risk of confusion on the part of consumers as to
the origin of goods or services," the summary of the opinion stated. "Internet
users are aware that not only the site of the trademark owner will appear as
a result of a search in Google's search engine and sometimes they may not even
be looking for that site. These users will only make an assessment as to the
origin of the goods or services advertised on the basis of the content of the
ad and by visiting the advertised sites; no assessment will be based solely
on the fact that the ads are displayed following the entry of keywords corresponding
to trademarks."
Poiares Maduro argued that, because trademark rights cannot be construed as
classical property rights enabling the trademark owner to exclude any other
use, internet users' access to information concerning the trademark should
not be limited to or by the trademark owner even if it involves a trademark
which has a reputation. Many of the sites reached by internet users by entering
keywords are "perfectly legitimate and lawful" even if they are not
the sites of the trademark owner, the opinion noted.
The Advocate General also rejects the notion that Google's actual or potential
contribution to a trademark infringement by a third party should constitute
an infringement in itself. Trademark owners would have to point to specific
instances giving rise to Google’s liability in the context of illegal
damage to their trademarks, he noted.
However, while Poiares Maduro observed that Google's search engine itself is
a "neutral information vehicle applying objective criteria in order to
generate the most relevant sites to the keywords entered," the same cannot
be said for its Adwords where Google has a "direct pecuniary interest in
internet users clicking on the ads' links" and which places the results
at the top of the list of search results, or in another more visible location
on the search results page.
According to law firm Field Fisher Waterhouse, which has offices in the UK,
France, Belgium and Germany, this is the first indication of the ECJ's attitude
towards keyword searches and the AG's opinion shows that he was "strongly
influenced" by the potential impact this case could have on the future
use of Internet search engines.
"If this opinion is followed by the judges in the European Court of Justice,
trademark owners will not be able to police their trademarks simply by preventing
third parties from using their trademarks as keywords," the firm noted.
"Instead they will have the task of continually monitoring sponsored results
produced by search engines to ensure that the wording of advertisements and
the websites to which they link do not infringe their trademark rights."
However, FFW observed that Poiares Maduro's view that Google’s AdWord
service cannot be protected as a hosting service could be of concern to the
search engine. "Without this defence, Google might be held liable for infringing
or illegal content in its sponsored listings although this will be subject to
interpretation by the national courts," the firm noted.
In another similar case which was decided recently, a French court sided with
French luxury perfume and cosmetic firm LVMH in a case against internet auction
site eBay, which allowed keywords for some of LVMH's products to appear in advertisements.
EBay was ordered to pay EUR80,000 in damages.