What the Google AdWords case means for IP owners

01 April 2010

Seven years after LVMH sued Google over its AdWords programme, Europe’s top court has ruled that the search engine is not liable under EU trade mark law. But that’s far from the end of the story

Emma Barraclough

It is a dispute that pitted the old world against the new: a Californian high-tech search engine against a Parisian luxury goods company. But last month Europe's highest court ruled that Google had not breached EU trade mark law by allowing advertisers to bid on keywords trademarked by third parties.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJ) ruled on March 23 in three closely watched joined cases, including one brought by luxury goods company LVMH, referred to it by France's Cour de cassation. The Court said that a referencing service provider such as Google allows its advertising clients to use signs which are identical with, or similar to, trade marks, but does not itself use those signs.

It said that if a trade mark has been used as a keyword, the proprietor of that trade mark cannot rely, as against Google, on the exclusive right which it...



Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP Magazine, log in or subscribe now.

Alternatively take a free trial, giving you 48-hour access to Managing IP Magazine (some articles and surveys may be excluded).

Subscribe Now

This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.

Subscribe

Take a free trial

Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.

Take a free trial


INTA Daily News 2012

Read this year's INTA Daily News - published daily by Managing IP direct from the 134th INTA Annual Meeting in Washington DC

null null null
null null

May 2012

Do you want to be famous?

Famous, well-known, notorious, reputed: everyone wants enhanced protection for their trade marks. But should they, and what does it mean if it is? Emma Barraclough explains



Most read articles

Poll

Will the new post grant and inter partes review proceedings result in more litigators practising pro hac vice before the USPTO?







Supplements