1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Google loses trademark fight in France

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by GreatOldOne, 7 Feb 2005.

  1. GreatOldOne

    GreatOldOne Wannabe Martian

    Joined:
    29 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    12,092
    Likes Received:
    112
    In a case of handbags at dawn, the posh bag maker Louis Vuitton has successfully sued Searchzilla for trademark infringement - following in the wake of the Le Meridian hotel chain's successful day in court:

    Google has lost another trademark infringement fight in Europe, this time to luxury goods company Louis Vuitton.

    The Paris District Court has ruled that the search company's practice of selling advertising triggered by searches for trademarked brand names does infringe the Louis Vuitton trademark. It charged Google with trademark counterfeiting, unfair competition and misleading advertising and ordered the company to pay €200,000.


    More here.

    The fines are nothing to a giant Globocorp like the 'zilla - but it does raise the questions: How many more court cases before they stop the practice? And would the outcome of the court cases have been any different if they'd be held in another, much larger country? ;)
     
  2. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    That's an incredibly daft move on the part of Vuitton - so now people searching for the keyword Vuitton won't get any targetted results. Surely the companies paying for targetted adverts triggered by that keyword are those who are likely to be selling Louis Vuitton handbags etc., so by objecting to it Vuitton are likely to detrimentally affect sales of their own products!

    Foot...gun...BANG!
     
  3. cpu121

    cpu121 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    25 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah but there's problem of targeted advertisers who're selling knock off Louis Vuitton goods.
     
  4. DreamTheEndless

    DreamTheEndless Gravity hates Bacon

    Joined:
    27 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    1,554
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many companies like things to be sold by "authorized retailers" only. It protects them from piracy etc...
     
  5. quack

    quack Minimodder

    Joined:
    6 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    5,240
    Likes Received:
    9
    They weren't just complaining that their trademark was being used without permission... they were complaining that it was being used by competitors to advertise their products and NOT Vuitton merchandise.
     
  6. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Yeah but that's a whole different issue - it's not Google's fault that there are websites selling fake goods. Vuitton would be far better served targetting those retailers, having them shut down by ISPs and their ads removed from Google. I'm quite sure Google would be happy to do this. In any case, these stores are unlikely to be the ones shelling out for targetted ads in search results.
    I still think the damage done in preventing links to stores trying to peddle genuine Vuitton goods will far outweigh the damage prevented by blocking the keyword entirely - after all, if you want to find a store locally to buy a Vuitton purse, you'll ignore results offering Gucci purses or whatever, and find a link to a genuine Vuitton store. At least that's what I'd do. But if I couldn't find a store at all, because for example Vuitton had forced el Searchio to remove all the paid links, then I might be tempted just to buy a Gucci one instead.

    Just an opinion.
     
  7. Uber_K

    Uber_K What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    7 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frankly, I don't think Google did anything wrong. They had the right to sell the ad space to the highest bidder, and it just so happened that a competitor, whether they were selling knock-offs or abusing the trademark for their own wares, had purchased the ad. Louis Vuitton could have chosen to sue the company, seeing as how their address is right there in the ad, or they could have simply put more money into that same ad keyword and outdo the competitor. I don't know much about the Adsense program, but I'm sure it can be done. By sueing Google, all they are doing is setting a bad example for the world and they telling everyone that the criminals aren't at fault anymore. It's the same way with violent video games and school shootings over here in the States. Parents no longer want to have to deal with the hassle of raising their own kids, so they neglect teaching them right and wrong and expect the government pay for their overall failure as a parent.
     
  8. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Agreed! :thumb:

    This is all part of the same litigiousness that has infected society recently. It's another facet of the disease that makes people think they are incapable of making mistakes and refuse to accept that sometimes **** just happens, so they find someone to sue for every little thing that goes wrong. People that whine "oh but McDonald's didn't tell me the coffee would be hot and I burnt myself so it must be their fault!" or "the government is to blame because I fell over a slightly uneven paving stone, bruised my knee and paid a corrupt doctor to say there's some real and lasting damage so I can screw other taxpayers out of more money" make me sick. So many scummy chavs are out for all they can get and want to be handed money without earning it, and the fact that you can't watch half an hour of TV without having a sodding Accident Link ad shoved down your neck doesn't help either.

    Sorry to rant. It just makes me so MAAAAD!! :wallbash:
     
  9. DreamTheEndless

    DreamTheEndless Gravity hates Bacon

    Joined:
    27 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    1,554
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry - I can't aggree. Google displayed Louis Vuitton's registered trademark (a trademark is considered to be property) without Louis Vuitton's permission in order to make money. That is a violation of trademark law.

    If you use someone elses trademark without permission, they have the right to ask you to stop. If you don't stop, they have the right to ask the courts to force you to stop. If they can show damages, they have the right to monetary compensation.

    The only thing I'm not as sure about on this one is the damages. Did this add from Google really cost Louis Vuitton 200,000 euros?

    (Also - they have a point with the 'misleading advertising' claim too.)
     
  10. jezmck

    jezmck Minimodder

    Joined:
    25 Sep 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Likes Received:
    36
    so they could also ask everyone here to remove their name from their posts?
    and so could Nike, Adidas, Microsoft, Ford, Cadbury's, simply because I've just mentioned them?

    edit: or do it just need to add ™s to them?
     
    Last edited: 8 Feb 2005
  11. camel

    camel What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    iirc, only if we are making money out of them or using the logo which can be taken to denote that the have endorsed the site or whatever.

    i rememebr working for shell years ago when they had to remove the pecten logo from carrier bags and dustbins etc in petrol stations as they were advised this could imply that shell made the thing and/or somehow endorsed their quality LOL
     
  12. quack

    quack Minimodder

    Joined:
    6 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    5,240
    Likes Received:
    9
    I'd imagine with those names, a ® would be more appropriate. All depends if they're registered or not.

    For example: Microsoft® Windows™.
     
  13. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Unfortunately damages in IP cases are notoriously difficult to quantify so the courts often resort to choosing arbitrary amounts. It is very odd that the court in this case thought the damage suffered by Vuitton was 100 times greater than that suffered by Le Meridien in an effectively identical case. It smacks of punitive damages to me.

    Interestingly a Google search for Louis Vuitton on google.co.uk now comes up with 2 sponsored links - one to a site offering free tips on buying replica goods, and one to eBay.

    Obviously under French law at least Vuitton must have had a case, but my point is that the zeal with which some corporations defend their IP verges on fanaticism. I fail to see how Vuitton can have lost at all through google's 'infringement' of their trademark. In fact, I see it as a form of free advertising for them and I think they are fools for insisting google take it down. Add to that the fondness many people have for Google and a petty case like this against them makes the claimant (ie Vuitton) look bad. All in all a pretty retarded move on Vuitton's part in my humblest of humble opinions.
     
  14. quack

    quack Minimodder

    Joined:
    6 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    5,240
    Likes Received:
    9
    Again, I reiterate. The companies using Vuitton's trademark were probably not just resellers but flat-out competitors trying to steal custom from poor old Louis, not to mention bootleggers. How is that "good" for Vuitton's business?

    The point of a trademark is that you hold the rights to any use of the name, Google completely ignored this and got their just desserts.
     
  15. Uber_K

    Uber_K What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    7 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Indeed, some very good points from you and the others. Google did allow the misuse of a registered trademark, and Google should have at the least removed the trademark from the ad and issued a warning to the offending company. There is no doubt that the ad cost Vuitton money, and they were justified in pushing legal action against Google, especially if they had asked Google to remove the ad before. Other steps should have been taken, like sueing the offending company (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember hearing that the false company was sued), and their should also be public explainations for each and every IP case. When the public hears that Google was sued for trademark infringment by Loius Vuitton, they assume that Google itself did the infringing. People need to know the specifics, so they can cast their own judgement.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page