Google Ordered to Pay Fine in French Trademark Cas

[ibe98765]

I don't see why this is a Google problem. Seems to me that the trademark owner should be going after the individual companies that are using the trademark, not Google for displaying results. Of course, that would be a lot more difficult and expensive...

Google Ordered to Pay Fine in French Trademark CaseOct 18, 2003 11:53 AM (ET) By Christopher Noble PARIS (Reuters) - A French court has ruled against Internet search powerhouse Google Inc. in an intellectual property rights case that could have far reaching technological and financial implications for Web search firms, who process tens of millions of queries a day.The civil court in Nanterre, near Paris, fined privately held Google 75,000 euros for allowing advertisers to link text Internet advertisements to trademarked search terms and gave the company 30 days to stop the practice, common at Internet search services.The ruling, handed down earlier this week, is believed to be the first in which the owner of a trademarked term successfully sued an Internet search service over the practice of allowing advertisers to use protected terms in text ads.If it was upheld on appeal and validated in other countries the decision could force the search services to pre-screen search terms for trademarks before letting advertisers use them.It was not the first time the French legal system has taken aim at the Internet. In November 2000, a French judge ordered Internet giant Yahoo to bar people in France from accessing sites selling Nazi memorabilia in a case that sparked a transatlantic legal spat.Timothy Koogle, the company's one-time chief executive, was acquitted earlier this year of charges that he condoned war crimes by selling the items on Yahoo sites.In the trademark case, the owner of the name "Bourse des vols" (Market for Flights), an Internet travel agent, wanted Google to stop allowing competitors to include "Bourse des vols" as a term that would generate an advertisement and link to their own site that Internet searchers could click on.Google had refused, arguing its French arm was not responsible, that the term bourse des vols was not protected by a valid trademark and that the issue was technological and could not be resolved.But the court found for the plaintiff on all three issues, said Fabrice Dariot, who owns the trademark to "Bourse des Vols" and sued Google. Dariot said that while the fine was small, the decision could be important."It was as though the Internet and the real world were two different worlds, but this ruling shows that there is only one world," he said in an interview. "It shows that the Internet will have to respect intellectual property rights."The result of the decision would be that any time the term "Bourse des Vols" was typed in, only ads for that specific site could be posted with the search results, Dariot said.Mountain View, California-based Google said it would appeal the decision and declined further comment.But because the decision was made on an enforceable basis, Google will have to make the changes while the appeal is underway or face fines of up to 1,500 euros for each infraction, Dariot said.

[Guest ThunderRiver]

I do believe that Google has the responsbility to keep up with its integratiy and accuracy.

[Prelude76]

yeah, google is in the wrong here. Say you search Coca-Cola, and get Pepsi as a paid link advertiser on the right side of the screen. this is what they're suing about. Or search for Nike results in Addidas and Reebok ads popping up.

[epp_b]

No, Google is NOT in the wrong here.If two different shoe companies to have retail stores in one mall, should one shoe store sue the other for being in the same mall?If there are two different musical instrument rental business have locations in one city, should one sue the other for being in the same city?If two airlines offer flights to the same locations, should one sue the other because their offering the same destinations?Same Diff. This could go on and on...Companies should not rely soley or mainly on search engines to bring them business. This is a major flaw in today's Internet-based businesses. The companies have to do some footwork themselves, too, by other methods and means of advertising -- not just submitting their site to a bunch of search engines, and hoping that customers will magically appear. The enterprise for this is far too large to rely this heavily on search engines.Not only that, but it's come to the point where we can't even say every-day sentences and phrases without stating a copyrighted term. Like (Nike) "Air" for example.Too many greedy companies are saying "this phrase is MINE!", when, really, it's just a simple word or phrase that doesn't "belong" to anyone. Unless, of course, it's a completely original word (like "Pepsi"). But even so, the psuedo situations listing above still stand to reason.Perhaps Google should do something to monitor businesses advertising as their competitors. However, with META-based search engines, you could do the same thing by putting competitor's terms in your keywords. Same thing. I don't recall any lawsuits on that.

[Prelude76]

please dont go on and on, as you're twisting the facts with your examples.Google had to "ADD" search word "bourse des vols" to flag and display competitors ad, probably at the competitors request. Since in France, Bourse des Vols is a trademark, and Google is profiting from re-directing trademark to competitors, i can see why they lost this lawsuit.although i dont agree with the 'copyright any word and make it your own' laws, they are, nonetheless, LAWS. If they get changed, then google would be in the clear. In the meantime, asking Google to do a trademark check on any KEYWORDS that flag certain sponsored advertisers is NOT a big deal, and it should've been done from the get go. Google's arguement was that the words "bourse des vols" is not a trademark, and French court said yes, yes it is a trademark. P.S. - we're talking about the ADS that give Google their profits, were NOT referring to search results.

[nlinecomputers]

epp_b,Your statement is flawed. Just having two shoe stores in the Mall isn't the problem. In this case it is more like having a sign on your door that says you sell Nike shoes but when you enter the store you are told that they don't. Or worse the store pays off the guy at the information desk at the front door of the mall. So when a customer asks "Where is the store I can find Nike shoes?" at he points you to the store above. A Trademark must be protected or you loose it. This is why a box of tissues can't call themselves Klennex even though many people will in converstaion ask for one by that name and be given any old box of tissues.Now what isn't totally clear to me is if this only applies to Google's paid Ads or to the search engine results. Google can't be held responseable for what someone else posts to the web.

[Prelude76]

The result of the decision would be that any time the term "Bourse des Vols" was typed in, only ads for that specific site could be posted with the search results, Dariot said.

I assume it only applies to the ads on the right side, not the actual search results.

[Freddy]

IMO - Google is not at fault. This is a directory service after all. If I were to open the yellow pages looking for one specific travel agent, I will find others, some with big multicolored ads that can overpower the listing I was originally looking for. The competing services are only saying, 'hey I'm a travel agent just like this other guy.'

[nlinecomputers]

IMO - Google is not at fault.  This is a directory service after all.  If I were to open the yellow pages looking for one specific travel agent, I will find others, some with big multicolored ads that can overpower the listing I was originally looking for.  The competing services are only saying, 'hey I'm a travel agent just like this other guy.'

Again that is not the case. Sigh...Don't they teach anyone what a trademark is anymore. A Slogan can be trademarked. So to use your example one of the Travel agents used a slogan. "THE agency for travel." He might have a slogan that can be trademarked. A search on that Slogan shouldn't call up an oposing travel agency. A better example is for Coke-a-cola. The slogan "It's the real thing." is a trademark of Coke-a-cola. A search on Google for that phrase should NOT call up Pepsi in an ADVERTISMENT. Note also that the yellow pages is PAID listing. You can get listed even in the whitepages unless you pay for it. Google doesn't charge you to be indexed by it's little spider. Even the white pages charge for the most basic listing.

[Prelude76]

exactly. google is taking money from a 'sponsor', and if someone searches for someone else's trademarked name, they 'trick' the user to showing the competitors ad. its not like they were searching for 'travel' or 'flights', they got that result when they keyed in an exact trademarked search term, so whoever was looking for it knew enough to look for that exact name, in which case, no, google should'nt have to right to 'trick' specific trademarked searches to show competitors ads. it's bad business practice, as it makes people see that their sponspored links are not accurate at all, and only benefit the highest paying sponsor, which makes me have some doubts about their search engine, if there isnt some sort of 'manipulation' of search results going on in there too. :ph34r:i'm sure if someone googled n-line computers and got his hometown's arch-rival's competition sponsored link, Nathan would be upset too. or if someone was searching for my dad's machine shop, and a google search using his exact company name gave people his competitions ad instead. And google knows they screwed up, thats why their case was hinged on 'its not a trademarked name'. Judge must've just looked at the name, see that it is a trademark, case closed.