Successfully reported this slideshow.

Keywords 100910

1,141 views

Published on

Slides from 24th IPSANZ Annual Conference, Sheraton Noosa, 11 September 2010

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Keywords 100910

  1. 1. OF KEYWORDS, ADWORDS AND TRADE MARK INFRINGERS <ul><li>Warwick A Rothnie </li></ul><ul><li>24th Annual IPSANZ Conference </li></ul><ul><li>11 September 2010 </li></ul>
  2. 2. 24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  3. 3. 24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  4. 4. <ul><li><title>Circle On Cavill : Surfers Paradise Apartments Gold Coast</title> </li></ul><ul><li><meta name&quot;=description&quot; content=&quot;Circle on Cavill Surfers Paradise, Circle on Cavill Apartments Surfers Paradise gold coast. Book directly with Circle on Cavill Surfers Paradise Gold Coast. &quot;> </li></ul><ul><li>< meta name=&quot;keywords&quot; content=&quot;Circle on Cavill, Circle on Cavill Apartments, Circle on Cavill surfers paradise, Circle on Cavill Apartments gold coast, Circle Apartments.&quot;> </li></ul><ul><li>Mantra v Tailly 86 IPR 19 at [42] </li></ul>24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  5. 6. <ul><li>2 key requirements: </li></ul><ul><li>use of the sign in commerce </li></ul><ul><li>which is likely to cause confusion </li></ul><ul><li>Rescuecom v Google 562 F.3d 123 at 130 (2d cir 2009) </li></ul>24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  6. 7. Brookfield v West Coast 174 F.3d 1036, 1064 (9th Cir. 1999) 24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  7. 8. <ul><li>What is important is not the duration of the confusion, it is the misappropriation of Promatek’s goodwill. Equitrac cannot unring the bell…. </li></ul><ul><li>Promatek v Equitrac 300 F.3d 808, 811-12 (7th Cir. 2002) </li></ul>24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  8. 9. Use in commerce <ul><li>here Google displays, offers, and sells Rescuecom’s mark to Google’s advertising customers </li></ul><ul><li>+ </li></ul><ul><li>encourages the purchase of Rescuecom’s mark through its Keyword Suggestion Tool </li></ul><ul><li>Rescuecom 562 F.3d 123 at 129 (CA 2 2009) </li></ul>24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  9. 10. Likelihood of confusion <ul><li>4 cases so far </li></ul><ul><li>Rosetta Stone </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>intent to profit is not the same as intent to confuse </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>5 instances out of 100,000 [or 100,000,000] hits </li></ul><ul><li>US$279 products </li></ul><ul><li>keywords were ‘functional’ </li></ul>24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  10. 12. In the course of trade <ul><li>The defendant must be using the trade mark in the course of trade </li></ul><ul><li>Google was engaging in trade, but it was the advertiser, not Google, using the trade mark in the course of trade </li></ul><ul><li>Cases C-236, 237 and 238/08 Google France [2010] RPC 569 at [52] - [58], [104]] </li></ul>24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  11. 13. Liable to affect function <ul><li>The ad suggests an economic link between the advertiser and the trade mark owner [89] </li></ul>24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  12. 14. or <ul><li>So vague that </li></ul><ul><li>normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users are unable to determine </li></ul><ul><li>whether the advertiser is a third party or economically linked to the trade mark proprietor [90] </li></ul>24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  13. 15. 24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010 via Austrotrabant
  14. 16. eCommerce Directive <ul><li>Intermediary service provider </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>being paid for the ad, not relevant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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 relevant </li></ul></ul>24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  15. 17. Does this help us? <ul><li>Somewhat divergent approaches - plenty of scope for an autochthonous solution </li></ul><ul><li>In the course of trade </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reed Executive plc v Reed Business Information Ltd [2004] RPC 767 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Directing or procuring </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Likelihood of confusion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intent to profit ≠ intent to confuse </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACCC v Google </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Is it even use as a trade mark? </li></ul>24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010
  16. 18. http://ipwars.com 24th IPSANZ Annual Conference © ipwars 2010

×