Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Google AdWords: Making Money by Riding on the Coattails -or- an Inventive Business Model
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Google AdWords: Making Money by Riding on the Coattails -or- an Inventive Business Model

1,235

Published on

Presentation held at the Faculty of Law, Masaryk University (Brno / CZ) 7th April 2011, 14.00 - 16.00. …

Presentation held at the Faculty of Law, Masaryk University (Brno / CZ) 7th April 2011, 14.00 - 16.00.

Led by:
Mgr. Matěj Myška
(Institute of Law and Technology)
http://www.cyber.law.muni.cz/en/index.php

Keynote:
Mag. Maximilian Schubert, LLM, Legal officer at ISPA (Internet Service Providers Austria)

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,235
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Making Money by Riding on the Coattails of the Reputation of the Trademarks of Others -or- an Inventive Business Model That Happens to Reveal the Flaws of the Traditional Perception of Trademark Use? Masaryk University , Maximilian Schubert Brno, 07.04.2011Freitag, 08. April 2011 1
  • 2. AdWords: Riding on Coattails -or- an Inventive Business Model Masaryk University , Maximilian Schubert Brno, 07.04.2011Freitag, 08. April 2011 2
  • 3. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣ Trademark Issues ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 3
  • 4. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣ Trademark Issues ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 4
  • 5. Keyword Agenda Buying as a response to search engine SPAM: ToGo.com (2001) Hargittai, The Role of Expertise in Navigating Links of Influence, in Turow/Tsui (Hrsg), The Hyperlinked Society: Questioning Connections in the Digital Age, Michigan Press (2008) 85ff.Freitag, 08. April 2011 5
  • 6. Keyword Agenda Buying as a response to search engine SPAM: ToGo.com (2001) Hargittai, The Role of Expertise in Navigating Links of Influence, in Turow/Tsui (Hrsg), The Hyperlinked Society: Questioning Connections in the Digital Age, Michigan Press (2008) 85ff.Freitag, 08. April 2011 5
  • 7. Simplified scheme of Search Engine Advertising UserFreitag, 08. April 2011 6
  • 8. Simplified scheme of Search Engine Advertising User User enters query: hotel edinburgh scotsmanFreitag, 08. April 2011 6
  • 9. Simplified scheme of Search Engine Advertising User User enters query: hotel edinburgh scotsman 846,000 relevant pages Index Search engine (Page) Rank RankingFreitag, 08. April 2011 6
  • 10. Simplified scheme of Search Engine Advertising User User enters query: hotel edinburgh scotsman 846,000 relevant pages Index Search engine (Page) Rank Ranking Search Engine Results Page (SERP)Freitag, 08. April 2011 6
  • 11. Simplified scheme of Search Engine Advertising User Advertiser User enters query: hotel edinburgh scotsman 846,000 relevant pages Index Search Ad- engine Words (Page) Rank Ranking Search Engine Results Page (SERP)Freitag, 08. April 2011 6
  • 12. Simplified scheme of Search Engine Advertising Advertiser books following ‘keywords’ User Advertiser - hotel - edinburgh User enters query: - scotsman hotel edinburgh scotsman Keyword Options: “broad match” Local target: Austria, Vienna Bid: EUR 0,15 per click 846,000 relevant pages Index Search Ad- engine Words (Page) Rank Ranking Search Engine Results Page (SERP)Freitag, 08. April 2011 6
  • 13. Simplified scheme of Search Engine Advertising Advertiser books following ‘keywords’ User Advertiser - hotel - edinburgh User enters query: - scotsman hotel edinburgh scotsman Keyword Options: “broad match” Local target: Austria, Vienna Bid: EUR 0,15 per click 846,000 relevant pages Index Search Ad- engine Words (Page) Rank Ranking Search Engine Results Page (SERP)Freitag, 08. April 2011 6
  • 14. 1. Differentiation: Top-Ad v. Side-AdFreitag, 08. April 2011 7
  • 15. 1. Differentiation: Top-Ad v. Side-Ad ‣ Top-AdFreitag, 08. April 2011 7
  • 16. 1. Differentiation: Top-Ad v. Side-Ad ‣ Top-Ad ‣ Side-AdFreitag, 08. April 2011 7
  • 17. 1. Differentiation: Top-Ad v. Side-Ad ‣ Top-Ad ‣ Side-Ad ‣ “organic” Search ResultsFreitag, 08. April 2011 7
  • 18. 1. Differentiation: Top-Ad v. Side-Ad illustrative! ‣ Top-Ad ‣ Side-Ad ‣ “organic” Search Results Google Golden Triangle - Eyetracking how people view search results I Eyetools http://eyetools.com/research_google_eyetracking_heatmap.html (18.03.2010).Freitag, 08. April 2011 7
  • 19. 2. Differentiation: Adv- v. Adv+ Does the text-ad bear the protected sign?Freitag, 08. April 2011 8
  • 20. 2. Differentiation: Adv- v. Adv+ Does the text-ad bear the protected sign?Freitag, 08. April 2011 8
  • 21. 2. Differentiation: Adv- v. Adv+ Does the text-ad bear the protected sign?Freitag, 08. April 2011 8
  • 22. 2. Differentiation: Adv- v. Adv+ Does the text-ad bear the protected sign? No: “Adv-” “Adv-” = sign booked as keyword & sign not shown in the text of the ad.Freitag, 08. April 2011 8
  • 23. 2. Differentiation: Adv- v. Adv+ Does the text-ad bear the protected sign? No: “Adv-” Yes: “Adv+” “Adv-” = sign booked as keyword & sign not shown in the text of the ad. “Adv+” = sign booked as keyword & sign shown in the text of the ad.Freitag, 08. April 2011 8
  • 24. 3. Differentiation: Keyword Options liberal restrictive bei Wein & Co Wien Spirituosen Keyword Wein & Co Options Flaschenwein billiger WeinFreitag, 08. April 2011 9
  • 25. 3. Differentiation: Keyword Options high tolerance ads shown often ‘high’ costs liberal restrictive bei Wein & Co Wien Spirituosen rd Wein & Co wo ns ey tio K p O Flaschenwein billiger WeinFreitag, 08. April 2011 9
  • 26. 3. Differentiation: Keyword Options low tolerance few ads shown ‘low’ costs liberal restrictive bei Wein & Co Wien Spirituosen Ke yw Op or Wein & Co tio d ns Flaschenwein billiger WeinFreitag, 08. April 2011 9
  • 27. 3. Differentiation: Keyword Options low tolerance few ads shown ‘low’ costs liberal restrictive bei Wein & Co Wien Spirituosen Ke yw Op or Wein & Co tio d ns Flaschenwein billiger WeinFreitag, 08. April 2011 9
  • 28. 4. Differentiation: Agenda Buying’ v. ‘Keyword Advertising’ ‘Keyword Search Engine Marketing (organic) Search Results ‣ Search Engine Marketing is the umbrella term, also including Search Engine Optimisation.Freitag, 08. April 2011 10
  • 29. 4. Differentiation: Agenda Buying’ v. ‘Keyword Advertising’ ‘Keyword Search Engine Marketing Keyword Advertising: Top- & Side Ads Top-Ad (organic) (organic) Side- Search Results Search Results Ad ‣ Search Engine Marketing is the umbrella term, also including Search Engine Optimisation. ‣ Keyword Advertising is the display of ads besides the search results. [1] 1: Fain/Pedersen, Sponsored Search: a Brief Histroy, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.92.987&rep=rep1&type=pdf (29.04.2010).Freitag, 08. April 2011 10
  • 30. 4. Differentiation: Agenda Buying’ v. ‘Keyword Advertising’ ‘Keyword Search Engine Marketing Keyword Advertising: Keyword Buying: Top- & Side Ads Ads in the Search Results Top-Ad Top-Ad (organic) (organic) Side- (organic) Side- Search Results Search Results Ad Search Results Ad ‣ Search Engine Marketing is the umbrella term, also including Search Engine Optimisation. ‣ Keyword Advertising is the display of ads besides the search results. [1] ‣ Keyword Buying is an artificial word-creation in German to distinguish advertising inside the ‘organic’ search results from regular keyword advertising. 1: Fain/Pedersen, Sponsored Search: a Brief Histroy, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.92.987&rep=rep1&type=pdf (29.04.2010).Freitag, 08. April 2011 10
  • 31. ‘Keyword Advertising’ ≠ ‘Keyword META TAG’ AgendaFreitag, 08. April 2011 11
  • 32. ‘Keyword Advertising’ ≠ ‘Keyword META TAG’ AgendaFreitag, 08. April 2011 11
  • 33. ‘Keyword Advertising’ ≠ ‘Keyword META TAG’ AgendaFreitag, 08. April 2011 11
  • 34. ‘Keyword Advertising’ ≠ ‘Keyword META TAG’ AgendaFreitag, 08. April 2011 11
  • 35. ‘Keyword Advertising’ ≠ ‘Keyword META TAG’ Agenda ‣ Because the aim for different effects. ‣ Because Google said so. ‣ Because evolution/development just keeps moving on.Freitag, 08. April 2011 12
  • 36. Differentiations & terms ‘Top Ad’ v. ‘Side Ad’ ‘Adv+’ v. ‘Adv-’ Keyword Options ‘Keyword Buying’ v. ‘Keyword Advertising’ ‘Keyword Advertising’ ≠’Keyword META TAG’Freitag, 08. April 2011 13
  • 37. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣ Trademark Issues ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 14
  • 38. 2007 - 2010; Any Changes? ‣ Ongoing developments: ‣ Tailored Advertising (Location, Language, etc.) ‣ Personalised Search: Search results influenced by previous searches ‣ Advertising in an augmented reality environment (continuous flow of information), advertising on mobile devices (smaller screens) ‣ Demise of the browser address line ‣ Google Suggest (‘Did you mean?’) ‣ Ongoing Changes of Google’s Trademark Policy (‘No Deceptive Implications’) ‣ Slight “Facelifts” to the design of the results page (SERP)Freitag, 08. April 2011 15
  • 39. Change: Agenda e.g. ‘Google Suggest’ ‣ Users don’t type in the complete search query as Google already offers suggestions while the user is typing.Freitag, 08. April 2011 16
  • 40. Change: Agenda e.g. “Google Suggest” ‣ The “Google Suggest” function can lead to a significant shift in demand. “Grunderwerbsteuer”: real estate transfer tax [Stefens, Google Suggest rulez the SERP, http://seo.de/2253/google-suggest-rulez-the-serps/ (22.02.2010)]Freitag, 08. April 2011 17
  • 41. Change: Agenda e.g. “Google Suggest” ‣ The “Google Suggest” ... a way of addressing customers even before they have fully articulated what they are actually searching for? Example, not a real screen-shot!Freitag, 08. April 2011 18
  • 42. Google AdWords Trademark Policy as of 07/04/2011 “text and keyword” “investigation if ad-text is investigation if reseller or 9 countries confusing” informative website e.g. China, N. Korea EU & EFTA the rest ... Google AdWords Trademark Complaint Search Engines Result Page Use as keyword to trigger the ad Use in text of the adFreitag, 08. April 2011 19
  • 43. Change: Agenda e.g. Facelift of the Labelling of Top-AdsFreitag, 08. April 2011 20
  • 44. Change: Agenda e.g. Facelift of the Labelling of Top-Ads - 2007Freitag, 08. April 2011 20
  • 45. Change: Agenda e.g. Facelift of the Labelling of Top-Ads - 2007 2007 - 2010Freitag, 08. April 2011 20
  • 46. Change: Agenda e.g. Facelift of the Labelling of Top-Ads - 2007 2007 - 2010 2010 - 2011Freitag, 08. April 2011 20
  • 47. Change: Agenda e.g. Facelift of the Labelling of Top-Ads - 2007 2007 - 2010 2010 - 2011 2011 -Freitag, 08. April 2011 20
  • 48. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣Trademark Issues ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 21
  • 49. Liability for ads on Google AdWords Liability arising from trademark law Liability arising from trademark law Advertiser Liability arising from unfair competition? ...Freitag, 08. April 2011 22
  • 50. Liability for ads on Google AdWords Liability arising from trademark law Liability for infrigements of its customers? Liability arising from trademark law Advertiser Liability arising from unfair competition? ...Freitag, 08. April 2011 22
  • 51. Key Questions of Trademark Law 1: Does the use of the trademark in the course of Keyword Advertising lead to any assumption of origin or quality? 2: Are the rights of a trademark owner infringed if a trademark or a sign similar to it is used in the course of Keyword Advertising to direct the attention of users at an (identical or similar) product of a third party?Freitag, 08. April 2011 23
  • 52. SHOP EXAMPLE Agenda Placing a “home brand” (here: CLEVER) right next to a “loss leader” (premium brand; here: PRIL) is a common practice within retail business to monetize a third party trade mark value. [Goldman, Brand Spillovers, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-01; Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 22, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1324822 (30.03.2009)]Freitag, 08. April 2011 24
  • 53. SHOP EXAMPLE Agenda Even if the shop only makes a small profit from selling the “premium product” or even a small loss, a certain proportion of the customers will decide to buy the “home brand”, thereby creating considerable profit. [Goldman, Brand Spillovers, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-01; Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 22, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1324822 (30.03.2009)]Freitag, 08. April 2011 25
  • 54. SHOP EXAMPLE Agenda Shelf M01 Shelf M01 Even if the shop only makes a small profit from selling the “premium product” or even a small loss, a certain proportion of the customers will decide to buy the “home brand”, thereby creating considerable profit. [Goldman, Brand Spillovers, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-01; Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 22, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1324822 (30.03.2009)]Freitag, 08. April 2011 25
  • 55. SHOP EXAMPLE Agenda Level 2 Level 2 Shelf M01 Shelf M01 Even if the shop only makes a small profit from selling the “premium product” or even a small loss, a certain proportion of the customers will decide to buy the “home brand”, thereby creating considerable profit. [Goldman, Brand Spillovers, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-01; Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 22, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1324822 (30.03.2009)]Freitag, 08. April 2011 25
  • 56. SHOP EXAMPLE Agenda Position No.: ..., 251, 301, ... (steps of 50) Level 2 Level 2 Shelf M01 Shelf M01 Even if the shop only makes a small profit from selling the “premium product” or even a small loss, a certain proportion of the customers will decide to buy the “home brand”, thereby creating considerable profit. [Goldman, Brand Spillovers, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-01; Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 22, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1324822 (30.03.2009)]Freitag, 08. April 2011 25
  • 57. SHOP EXAMPLE Agenda Position No.: ..., 251, 301, ... (steps of 50) Level 2 Level 2 Shelf M01 Shelf M01 Summary: Stores are regularly allowed to utilize the reputation of a trademark to support the sale of their own products and thereby create profit. For search engines it has long been questionable whether advertisements on the same page as the search results should be seen as infringing. [Goldman, Brand Spillovers, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-01; Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 22, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1324822 (30.03.2009)]Freitag, 08. April 2011 26
  • 58. SHOP EXAMPLE Agenda [Goldman, Brand Spillovers, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-01; Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 22, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1324822 (30.03.2009)]Freitag, 08. April 2011 27
  • 59. Key Questions of the Law of Unfair Competition Should the display of ads in the course of Keyword Advertising be seen as an unfair “interception of customers” [Abfangen von Kunden] Is there a likeliness of an image transfer and/or is Google riding on the coat-tails of the good reputation of the trade mark?Freitag, 08. April 2011 28
  • 60. Agenda Interception of customers, exploitation of the repuation ‣ It is not per se “unfair” to address potential customers. ‣ It is only “unfair” to purposely address customers of a competitor in very close proximity to their shops. (“presumptive customer”) ‣ Austrian case law: ‣ Reklamezettel: Addressing a customer and a shop assistant ‣ Stiftsparkplatz: Payment of bribes to a bus driver ‣ Interception possible e.g. eCommerce-Websites (e.g. Amazon, eBay). ‣ Perceived as irritating by users ‣ Exploitation of a reputation: requirement of the transfer of the reputation [OGH, 16.01.1996, 4 Ob 4/96 -Kärntnerring-Garage- ÖBl 1996, 180; OGH 13.10.1970, 4 Ob 343/70 -Reklamezettelverteilen- ÖBl 1971, 41; OGH, 10.05.1996, 4 Ob 2244/96w -Stiftsparkplatz- ÖBl 1997, 61; OGH, 12.07.2005, 4 Ob 131/05a -whirlpool- MMR 2005, 446. ]Freitag, 08. April 2011 29
  • 61. Agenda “Doorway”-analogy ‣ Definition of a doorway: A (non-fitting) analogy? ‣ Popular analogies: “city centre”, “shopping mall” and “supermarket”? ‣ Possibility to present similar goods in a alphabetical order? http://wikimapia.org/10344546/Burlington-Square-MallFreitag, 08. April 2011 30
  • 62. Agenda “Doorway”-analogy ‣ Definition of a doorway: A (non-fitting) analogy? ‣ Popular analogies: “city centre”, “shopping mall” and “supermarket”? ‣ Possibility to present similar goods in a alphabetical order? TM 1 TM 2 http://wikimapia.org/10344546/Burlington-Square-MallFreitag, 08. April 2011 30
  • 63. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣ Trademark Issues ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 31
  • 64. Art 5 (1) Directive 89/104/EEC (‘Trademark Dir’) - Basics The proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade: (a) any sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the trade mark is registered; (b) any sign where, because of its identity with, or similarity to, the trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade mark and the sign, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association between the sign and the trade mark. Art 5 (1) Directive 89/104/EECFreitag, 08. April 2011 32
  • 65. Art 5 (1) Directive 89/104/EEC - Basics The proprietor is entitled to prevent all third parties who do not have his/her consent from using any sign in the course of trade if: lit a. identical + identical = ! lit b. identical /similar sign + identical /similar goods + likeliness of confusion = ! Art 5 (1) Directive 89/104/EECFreitag, 08. April 2011 33
  • 66. Art 5 (1) Directive 89/104/EEC - Basics The proprietor is entitled to prevent all third parties who do not have his/her consent from using any sign in the course of trade if: TM lit a. identical + identical = infringed TM lit b. identical /similar + identical /similar + likeliness of confusion = infringed sign goods Art 5 (1) Directive 89/104/EECFreitag, 08. April 2011 34
  • 67. Art 5 (2) Directive 89/104/EEC ...[T]he proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade any sign which is identical with, or similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in the Member State and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark. identical /similar + different + detrimental use = ! sign product Art 5 (2) Directive 89/104/EECFreitag, 08. April 2011 35
  • 68. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣Trademark Issues ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 36
  • 69. Art 14 Directive 2000/31/EC - Liability Exemption ‘Hosting’ 1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service, [...] the service provider is not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service, on condition that: (a) the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent; or (b) the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information. Art 14 Directive 2000/31/ECFreitag, 08. April 2011 37
  • 70. Art 14 Directive 2000/31/EC - Liability Exemption The service provider is not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service if: ‣ No actual knowledge of illegal activity ‣ Illegal activity or information is not apparent ‣ Upon obtaining knowledge acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access. Art 14 Directive 2000/31/ECFreitag, 08. April 2011 38
  • 71. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣Trademark Issues ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 39
  • 72. Keyword Advertising Decisions by the ECJ Preliminary Rulings: ‣ Joint cases C‑236/08, C‑237/08 and C‑238/08, Google France v Louis Vuitton Malletier,  Google France v Viaticum Luteciel, Google France v CNRRH Pierre‑Alexis Thonet Bruno Raboin Tiger, a franchisee of Unicis, 23.03.2010. ‣ Case C-278/08, Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH, 25.03.2010. ‣ Case C-C-91/09, Eis.de v BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH, 26.03.2010. ‣ Case C‑558/08, Portakabin Ltd, Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV, 08.07.2010. Opinion of the General Advocate: ‣ Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 22 September 2009 on the joint cases C‑236/08, C‑237/08 and C‑238/08, Google France v Louis Vuitton Malletier,  Google France v Viaticum Luteciel, Google France v CNRRH Pierre‑Alexis Thonet Bruno Raboin Tiger, a franchisee of Unicis ‣ Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen delivered on 24 March 2011 on the case Case C‑323/09, Interflora Inc Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc Flowers Direct Online LimitedFreitag, 08. April 2011 40
  • 73. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣ Trademark Issues ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 41
  • 74. Google France - Art 5 (1) (a) By application of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 [...] the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit a third party from using [a sign identical with that trade mark] - without the proprietor’s consent, - when that use is in the course of trade, - in relation to goods or services which are identical with, or similar to, those for which that trade mark is registered - and affects, or is liable to affect, the functions of the trade mark. lit a. identical sign + identical goods + functions affected = ! ECJ, 23.03.2010, joint cases C-236/08 - C 238/08, Google France, MarkenR 2010, 174, par 49Freitag, 08. April 2011 42
  • 75. O2 - Art 5 (1) (b) The proprietor of a registered mark may prevent the use of a sign by a third party which is identical with, or similar to, his mark under Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 only if the following four conditions are satisfied: - that use must be in the course of trade; - it must be without the consent of the proprietor of the mark; - it must be in respect of goods or services which are identical with, or similar to, those for which the mark is registered, and - it must affect or be liable to affect the essential function of the trade mark, which is to guarantee to consumers the origin of the goods or services, by reason of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. lit b. identical /similar sign + identical /similar goods + ess. func. affected = ! ECJ, 12.06.2008, C‑533/06, O2 Holdings and O2, ECR I‑4231, par 57.Freitag, 08. April 2011 43
  • 76. Comparison: Likeliness of Confusion - Essential Functions Affected [39] Art 5 (1) lit. b: [...] whether there is a likelihood of likeliness of confusion confusion when internet users are shown, on the basis of a keyword similar to a mark, a third party’s ad which... ... does not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the ad originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party. [35] Art 5 (1) lit a. The function of indicating the origin of the ess. funct. affected mark is adversely affected if the ad... ... does not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the ad originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party. ECJ, 25.03.2010, C-278/08, Bergspechte, MarkenR 2010, 171.Freitag, 08. April 2011 44
  • 77. Comparison: Likeliness of Confusion - Essential Functions Affected likeliness of confusion ... does not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the ad originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party. ess. funct. affected ... does not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the ad originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party. ECJ, 25.03.2010, C-278/08, Bergspechte, MarkenR 2010, 171, par 39, 35.Freitag, 08. April 2011 45
  • 78. Comparison: Likeliness of Confusion - Essential Functions Affected ... does not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the ad originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party. ... does not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the ad originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party. ECJ, 25.03.2010, C-278/08, Bergspechte, MarkenR 2010, 171, par 39, 35.Freitag, 08. April 2011 45
  • 79. Comparison: Likeliness of Confusion - Essential Functions Affected [39] [...] whether there is a likelihood of confusion when internet users are shown, on the basis of a keyword similar to a mark, a third party’s ad which... ... does not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the ad originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party. ECJ, 25.03.2010, C-278/08, Bergspechte, MarkenR 2010, 171, par 39, 35.Freitag, 08. April 2011 46
  • 80. Comparison: Likeliness of Confusion - Essential Functions Affected ... does not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the ad originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party. ess. funct. affected = likeliness of confusion ECJ, 25.03.2010, C-278/08, Bergspechte, MarkenR 2010, 171.Freitag, 08. April 2011 47
  • 81. Comparison: Likeliness of Confusion - Essential Functions Affected ... does not enable normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the ad originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party. ess. funct. affected = likeliness of confusion The criteria for adversely affecting the essential TM-function and the likeliness of confusion are identical. ECJ, 25.03.2010, C-278/08, Bergspechte, MarkenR 2010, 171.Freitag, 08. April 2011 47
  • 82. Art 5 (1) Directive 89/104/EEC - Comparison pre Google France lit a. identical + identical = ! lit b. identical /similar + identical /similar + likeliness of confusion = !Freitag, 08. April 2011 48
  • 83. " Art 5 (1) Directive 89/104/EEC - Comparison pre Google France lit a. identical + identical = ! lit b. identical /similar + identical /similar + likeliness of confusion = ! post Google France lit a. identical + identical + functions affected = ! lit b. identical /similar + identical /similar + ess. funct. affected = ! sign goodsFreitag, 08. April 2011 49
  • 84. Art 5 Directive 89/104/EEC - Summary HIGH LEVEL OF PROTECTION Art 5 (2) detrimental use Art 5 (1) lit a. functions ‣ Function of Origin affected ‣ Advertising Function Art 5 (1) lit b. likeliness of confusion ‣ Function of Origin LOWFreitag, 08. April 2011 50
  • 85. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣ Trademark Issues ‣ Function of Indicating Origin ‣ Advertising Function ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 51
  • 86. ECJ Google France - Trademark Functions According to Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit a third party from using, that sign if that use affects, or is liable to affect, the functions of the trade mark. Those functions include not only the essential function of the trade mark, the function of indicating origin, but also its other functions, in particular that of guaranteeing the quality of the goods or services in question and those of communication, investment or advertising. Function of Origin TM Functions Advertising Function ECJ, 23.03.2010, joint cases C-236/08 - C 238/08, Google France, MarkenR 2010, 174, par 49, 77.Freitag, 08. April 2011 52
  • 87. ECJ Google France - ‘Function of Indicating Origin’ Function of Origin The essential function of a trade mark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked goods or service to the consumer or end user by enabling him to distinguish the goods or service from others which have another origin. The question whether that function is adversely affected by keyword advertising depends in particular on the manner in which that ad is presented. National courts have to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the facts of the dispute before them indicate adverse effects, or a risk thereof, on the function of indicating origin. ECJ, 23.03.2010, joint cases C-236/08 - C 238/08, Google France, MarkenR 2010, 174, par 82, 83, 88.Freitag, 08. April 2011 53
  • 88. ECJ Google France - ‘Function of Indicating Origin’ Function of Origin Function of Indicating Origin is adversely affected if: ‣ the ad suggests that there is an economic link between that third party and the proprietor of the trade mark. ‣ the ad, while not suggesting the existence of an economic link, is vague to such an extent on the origin of the goods or services at issue that normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users are unable to determine, on the basis of the advertising link and the commercial message attached thereto, whether the advertiser is a third party vis- à-vis the proprietor of the trade mark or, on the contrary, economically linked to that proprietor. ECJ, 23.03.2010, joint cases C-236/08 - C 238/08, Google France, MarkenR 2010, 174, par 89, 90.Freitag, 08. April 2011 54
  • 89. ECJ Google France - ‘Function of Indicating Origin’ What does an ad have to look like, so as not to impair the function of indicating origin? ‣ Is it enough for a third party just not to show the competitor’s TM in the ad? (“Adv-”) ‣ Competitor obliged also to display the competing brand? ‣ Different situation if TM-owner also displays text ads? ‣ Why should a TM-owner sponsor all the ads shown?Freitag, 08. April 2011 55
  • 90. ECJ Google France - ‘Function of Indicating Origin’ What does an ad have to look like, so as not to adversely affect the function of origin? Text Ads: Up to 4 lines, Headline: max 25 signs Following lines: 35 signs each Display URL Further content & formal restraints: e.g. price, goods & service offeredFreitag, 08. April 2011 56
  • 91. Discretionary questions stemming from Google France Agenda ‣ The aspect of what is meant by ‘vague’ remains subject to interpretation by national courts. Where to draw the line between being ‘vague’ and not causing any wrong assumptions remains the crucial issue. Infringement Infringement No Infringement ‘Suggesting a Being ‘vague’ No wrong assumptions connection’Freitag, 08. April 2011 57
  • 92. Discretionary questions stemming from Google France Agenda ‣ The aspect of what is meant by ‘vague’ remains subject to interpretation by national courts. Where to draw the line between being ‘vague’ and not causing any wrong assumptions remains the crucial issue. Infringement Infringement No Infringement ‘Suggesting a Being ‘vague’ No wrong assumptions connection’Freitag, 08. April 2011 57
  • 93. Discretionary questions stemming from Google France Agenda ‣ The aspect of what is meant by ‘vague’ remains subject to interpretation by national courts. Where to draw the line between being ‘vague’ and not causing any wrong assumptions remains the crucial issue. Infringement Infringement No Infringement ‘Suggesting a Being ‘vague’ No wrong assumptions connection’ Infringement No InfringementFreitag, 08. April 2011 57
  • 94. Discretionary questions stemming from Google France Agenda ‣ The aspect of what is meant by ‘vague’ remains subject to interpretation by national courts. Where to draw the line between being ‘vague’ and not causing any wrong assumptions remains the crucial issue. Infringement Infringement No Infringement ‘Suggesting a Being ‘vague’ No wrong assumptions connection’ Infringement No Infringement Not having done everything to rule out any chance of confusion TM-owner friendly view e.g. OGH, 21.06.2010, 17 Ob 3/10f, Bergspechte II; UK High Court of Justice [2010] EWHC 2599 (Ch)Freitag, 08. April 2011 57
  • 95. Discretionary questions stemming from Google France Agenda ‣ The aspect of what is meant by ‘vague’ remains subject to interpretation by national courts. Where to draw the line between being ‘vague’ and not causing any wrong assumptions remains the crucial issue. Infringement Infringement No Infringement ‘Suggesting a Being ‘vague’ No wrong assumptions connection’ Infringement No Infringement Not having done everything to Not having done anything to rule out any chance of confusion cause any kind of confusion TM-owner friendly view Advertiser friendly view e.g. OGH, 21.06.2010, 17 Ob 3/10f, Bergspechte II; e.g. BGH, 16.01.2011, XXXX, Bananabay UK High Court of Justice [2010] EWHC 2599 (Ch)Freitag, 08. April 2011 57
  • 96. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣ Trademark Issues ‣ Function of Indicating Origin ‣ Advertising Function ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 58
  • 97. ECJ Google France - Advertising Function Advertising Function The trade mark owner may have not only the objective of indicating the origin of its goods or services, but also that of using its mark for advertising purposes designed to inform and persuade consumers. The proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit a third party from using his trade mark if that use adversely affects the owner’s use as a factor in sales promotion or as an instrument of commercial strategy. With regard to the use of that sign for keyword advertising, it is clear that that use is liable to have certain repercussions on the advertising use of that mark by its owner and on his/her commercial strategy. ECJ, 23.03.2010, joint cases C-236/08 - C 238/08, Google France, MarkenR 2010, 174, par 91, 92, 93.Freitag, 08. April 2011 59
  • 98. ECJ Google France - Advertising Function Advertising Function Repercussions caused by the use of a sign identical with the trade mark by third parties do not of themselves constitute an adverse effect on the advertising function of the trade mark. When internet users enter the name of a trade mark as a search term, the home and advertising page of the proprietor of that mark will appear in the list of the natural results, usually in one of the highest positions on that list. That display means that the visibility to internet users is guaranteed. Thus it must be concluded that use of a sign identical with another person’s trade mark for keyword advertising is not liable to have an adverse effect on the advertising function of the trade mark. ECJ, 23.03.2010, joint cases C-236/08 - C 238/08, Google France, MarkenR 2010, 174, par 95, 97, 98.Freitag, 08. April 2011 60
  • 99. ECJ Google France - Advertising Function Advertising Function ‣ What should happen in the unusual case that the TM- owner’s website is not included in the natural search results? ‣ In practise only the first couple of results count. Is it still enough for the TM-owner to be on the second page? (“Primacy Effect”) ‣ Is there a duty for competitors to check if the TM-holder’s website is (still) being displayed?Freitag, 08. April 2011 61
  • 100. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣ Trademark Issues ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 62
  • 101. ECJ Google France - Liability Exemption The liability of a referencing service may be limited under Article 14 of Directive 2000/31, if the role played by that service provider is neutral, in the sense that its conduct is merely technical, automatic and passive, pointing to a lack of knowledge or control of the data which it stores. With regard to Google AdWords, it is apparent that, with the help of software which it has developed, Google processes the data entered by advertisers and the resulting display of the ads is made under conditions which Google controls. Thus, Google determines the order of display according to, inter alia, the remuneration paid by the advertisers. The Directive never mentions the criteria of ‘neutrality’! ECJ, 23.03.2010, joint cases C-236/08 - C 238/08, Google France, MarkenR 2010, 174, par. 114, 115, 116.Freitag, 08. April 2011 63
  • 102. ECJ Google France - Liability Exemption The mere facts that the referencing service is subject to payment, that Google sets the payment terms or that it provides general information to its clients cannot have the effect of depriving Google of the liability exemptions.The fact that Google matches keywords and search terms is also not sufficient of itself to justify the view that Google has knowledge of, or control over, the data entered into its system by advertisers and stored in memory on its server. The role played by Google in the drafting of the commercial message which accompanies the advertising link or in the establishment or selection of keywords is however relevant. The national court, which is best placed to be aware of the actual terms on which the service is supplied, must assess whether the role thus played by Google corresponds to that described in Art 14 of Directive 2000/31. ECJ, 23.03.2010, joint cases C-236/08 - C 238/08, Google France, MarkenR 2010, 174, par 116, 117, 118, 119.Freitag, 08. April 2011 64
  • 103. ECJ Google France - Liability Exemption - Keyword Tool (neutral) - Price Setting Mechanism (neutral) - Broad Matching Function (neutral) - Display of Ads (neutral) . Every part considered on its own, appears neutral, thus the liability exemption might be applied. But however, should the broader concept of selling ‘user attention’ really be deemed neutral?Freitag, 08. April 2011 65
  • 104. Content ‣ Introduction ‣ Explanation & Differentiation ‣ 2007 - 2011; Many Changes... ‣ Ongoing Legal Discussion ‣ Trademark Use - Art 5 ‣ Liability Exemption - Art 14 ‣ The ECJ Rulings ‣ Trademark Issues ‣ Liability Exemption ‣ Summary & OutlookFreitag, 08. April 2011 66
  • 105. Summary & Outlook ‣ Change in the concept of trademark protection. ‣ Keyword Advertising by itself does not infringe function of origin, only the content might. ‣ Unclear scope of the protection of the advertising function. ‣ Liability of referencing services (AdWords) still not clear. ‣ No legal certainty ...yet. Many questions remain...Freitag, 08. April 2011 67
  • 106. Thank You Agenda For Your Attention Ott/Schubert, ‘It’s the Ad text, stupid’  – Cryptic Answers by the ECJ won’t Help to establish Legal Certainty for Online Advertisers, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2011, Vol. 6, No. 1. Mag. Maximilian Schubert LL.M. Jurist.0.8.15@gmail.com www.austrotrabant.atFreitag, 08. April 2011 68
  • 107. BACKUP Agenda BACK UPFreitag, 08. April 2011 69
  • 108. !"#"$%&()*+,$#*-% FLYER / INVITATION ."/(0-%1.0"2 *)#-*-(-,1.0"2")3-,/4)1015% cordially invites you to attend a workshop: Making Money by Riding on the Coattails of the Reputation of the Trademarks of Others OR an Inventive Business Model That Happens to Reveal the Flaws of the Traditional Perception of Trademark Use? Keynote: Mag. Maximilian Schubert, LLM Legal o cer at ISPA (Internet Service Providers Austria) Worskhop will be led by: Mgr. Mat j My⌃ka (Institute of Law and Technology) Date and time: 7th April 2011, 14.00 - 16.00 Venue: Room n. 109, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University Entrance: Free Registration at: www.cyber.law.muni.czFreitag, 08. April 2011 70
  • 109. ADDITIONAL LINKS: ‣ Google Suggest: ‣ How Google Instant’s Autocomplete Suggestions Work (07/04/2011) ‣ Google loses autocomplete defamation case in Italy (05/04/2011) ‣ Google Trademark Policy: ‣ http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=6118Freitag, 08. April 2011 71
  • 110. User perspective: ‣ Objectively most users’ usability stills are very poor. ‣ Anyway, they don’t mind! ‣ Objectively users don’t really understand how search engines function and how they fund themselves. ‣ Actually, they don’t care! ‣ Only one out of six search engines users can differentiate between search results and paid advertisement. ‣ But they just (subconsciously) ignore it most of the time! ‣ Enormous trust in search engines! Fallows, Search Engine Users – Internet searchers are confident, satisfied and thrusting – but they are also unaware and naive (02.04.2009) 27; Fries, Suchverhalten im Internet VDM Müller Verlag (2007), Saarbrücken 72; Pan/Hembrooke/Joachims/Lorigo/Gay/Granka, In Google We Trust: Users’ Decision on Rank, Position, and Relevance, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007, 12/3 (02.04.2009)Freitag, 08. April 2011 72
  • 111. Online Dichotomy: Agenda ‣ Challenge: “to find an adequate balance between the legitimate concerns of rightholders to be protected, and those of the public to access and use the information contained in these assets” [Gilliéron, ICC 2008/6 688] ‣ Consumer Search Costs: “[T]rademark law, by preventing others from copying a source-identifying mark, reduce[s] the comsumers’ costs of shopping and making purchase decisions, for it quickly and easily assures a potential customer that this item - the item with the mark - is made by the same producer as other similarly marked imtems that he or she like (or disliked in the past” [United States Supreme Court, Qualitex, Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. Inc, 514 U.S. 159, 163 et seq. (1994) ]Freitag, 08. April 2011 73
  • 112. Online Dichotomy: Agenda ‣ Shop Example: “[S]uppose a customer walks into a store and asks for Playboy Magazine and is then directed to the adult magazine section, where he or she sees Penthouse or hustler up in front on the rack while Playboy is burried in back. One would not say that Penthouse or Hustler had violated Playboy’s trademark. this conclusion holds even true if Hustler paid the store owner to put its magazines in front of Playboy’s.” [Judge Berzon in his dissenting opinion in Playboy Enterprises v. Netscape Communications, 354 F. 3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2004) 1034-1035]Freitag, 08. April 2011 74
  • 113. Law of Unfair Competition & text ads Agenda ‣ The content of text-ads; the future playground of law of unfair competition lawyers? Moringware Inc. v. Hearthware Home OLG Hamm, 26.01.2010, 4 U 141/09 Products Inc. Keyword used: TM of the competitor Question: “eye-catching ad” as the ad does explicitly not state that the price is Question: “False statement / derogatory only valid for one package per purchase. speech”as the ad text implies somehow implies that the competitors’ goods are imitations? For more information on these cases please see www.austrotrabant.atFreitag, 08. April 2011 75
  • 114. Opinion Maduro, Google France Only for TM Issues dealt with Criteria for trademark infringement [54. & Fn 21.] with a rep. trade in the GA’s opinion i) no consent ii) in the iii) relates to iv) affects main affects other mark by TM holder course of trade goods/services TM function TM functions infringement Display of natural results by Google (72.) " " " ! (86.-92.) NO (no confusion) Display of advertiser’s ads by Google (70.) " " " (79.-81.) ! “no risk of confusion on (86.-92.) the side of the NO (no confusion) consumer” Allowing advertisers to select keyword by Google (60.) " " ! (62.-67.) ! (69.) NO (different goods & no confusion) “other side of the coin” Booking of keyword by advertiser (147.) " ! (151.) NO (private, not in the course of trade) MAYBE Use of TM in the text of ads by advertiser (46.) " " " " (153.) (if ad or website creates confusion) MAYBE Contributory liability by Google/AdWords (114.) " " " " (123.) (under certain circumstances) Infringement of TMs with reputation (93.) " " " not required (94.) ! (113.) NO (result of a balance of interests) Directive AdWords Yes " Exception AdWords No " MAYBE Liability Exception Applicable? applicable? for AdWords Art. 12-14 Directive 2000/31 ! (136.) Google Yes " (137.) Google Maybe (“not neutral”) " criteria fulfilled " criteria hypothetically fulfilled ! criteria not fulfilledFreitag, 08. April 2011 76
  • 115. Opinion Maduro, Google France AdWord’s service establishes a link Ads by the advertiser, between the keyword/TM and the might be infringing, (153.) goods of the advertiser. (79.) depending on the content of Thus iii) criteria is fulfilled. the ad and the website = if they create confusion. However there is no risk of confusion (86.-92.) Liability governed by Thus the iv) criteria is not fulfilled. national law Use 2 Advertiser’s Adwords Website Google SERP Keyword Advertiser Selection Use 1 Buying/booking of the keyword by the Advertiser is a private act and thus no use in commerce. Thus the ii) criteria is not fulfilled. (151.) The sale /allowing of selection of the keywords by Adwords is not a use for related to similar goods and service as Adwords sells keywords and NOT good or services which are similar to the ones of the TM holder. Thus the iii) criteria is not fulfilled. (67.)Freitag, 08. April 2011 77
  • 116. OGH: Keyword Buying? Simplified layout of a SE List of Hits (“Trefferliste”) List of Hits (“Trefferliste”) result page narrow meaning broad meaning Top-Ad Top-Ad Top-Ad (organic) Side- (organic) Side- (organic) Side- Search Results Ad Search Results Ad Search Results Ad List of Hits: List of Hits: (organic) Search Results (organic) SR + Top AdsFreitag, 08. April 2011 78
  • 117. OGH: Keyword Buying? [6] [...] That advertising link appears under the heading ‘sponsored links’, which is displayed either on the right-hand side of the screen, to the right of the natural results, or on the upper part of the screen, above the natural results. [43] [...] In those circumstances, examination of the protection conferred by a trade mark on its proprietor in the event of the display of advertisements of third parties which are not ‘sponsored links’ would not be useful in resolving the dispute in the main proceedings. In the view of the ECJ, Google does not display advertisements inside their ‘organic’ search results. ECJ, 25.03.2010, C-278/08, Bergspechte, MarkenR 2010, 171, par 6, 43.Freitag, 08. April 2011 79

×