Transcript Google v CNRRH - Stanford Law School

Keyword Ads and
Trademark Infringement
in 2009
Update on the latest case-law in the US and Europe
which could make or break the search engine industry
Alexander Tsoutsanis
Stanford Law School – April 23rd 2009
Topics
 Introduction
 Keyword Advertising
 Overview 2008/2009
 Infringement
by Advertisers
by Search Engines
 Evaluation
Portakabin v. Primakabin (NL)
Dispute between TM owner and
Advertiser: Google not directly involved
2008: Supreme Court refers to ECJ
Extensive questions:
Infringement
Fair use
First sale doctrine
Unfair competition
7 Questions pending before ECJ
 1(a) TM Use. Does the use of a third party TM as a
keyword for advertising identical products constitute
TM use by the advertiser?
 1(b) Presentation. Does it make a difference
whether the ‘sponsored result’ is displayed in the
‘ordinary list of webpages found’ or ‘in an
advertising section identified as such’?
 1(c) Actual offer. Does it make a difference
whether the identical products are offered in the
‘sponsored result’ or in the linked webpage?
 2. Fair use defense. Can an advertiser escape TM
infringement by relying on fair use?
 3. First sale doctrine. Can an advertiser escape TM
infringement by relying on the first sale doctrine?
 4.“Typo keywords”. Do the answers to the
foregoing questions also apply for keywords in which
the trade mark is deliberately reproduced with minor
spelling mistakes ?
 5. Unfair competition. If there’s no TM use, can a
TM owner invoke unfair competition pursuant to § 55 of the Directive?
Keyword Advertising: possible TM use
Selling/
Purchase
Display TM Display TM
suggesting of keyword in ad on
on
keyword
website SE advertiser’s
website
Search
engine
Advertiser
SE /
Advertiser
Advertiser
+SE?
Overview 08/09: selected key cases EU + US
Europe
 3 June 08:
Google v LouisVuitton (C236/08)
Google v Viaticum (C-237/08)
Google v CNRRH (C-238/08)
 26 June 08: BergSpechte v G. Guni (C278/08)
 17 Dec 08: Portakabin v Primakabin (C558/08)
 22 Jan 09:
Bananabay (I ZR 125/07)
Overview 08/09: selected key cases EU + US
United States
 18 June 08: Finance Express v Nowcom
(C.D.Cal, 07-01225)
 1 Aug 08:
Hysitron v MTS
(D. Minn., 07-01533)
 27 March 09: Hearts on Fire v Blue Nile
(D. Mass, 08-11053)
 3 April 09:
Rescuecom v Google
(2nd Cir, 06-4881)
Overview (2): relevance re. defendants
Re. infringement by
advertisers:
Re. infringement by
search engines:
 Google v CNRRH
 Google v Louis Vuitton
 BergSpechte v G. Guni
 Google v Viaticum
 Portakabin v Primakabin
 Google v CNRRH
 Bananabay
***
 Fin. Express v Nowcom
 Hysitron v MTS
 Hearts on Fire v Blue Nile
***
 Rescuecom v Google
TM Infringement
Three issues:
1.
Use in commerce
2.A Likelihood of confusion
2.B Dilution
3.
Defenses
(1) Establishing ‘use’
EU
US
Use in commerce “for the purpose of
distinguishing goods or
services”
“in connection with
(offering for) sale,
distribution or
advertising of any goods
or services”
Use as a
Trademark?
 McCarthy: No
ECJ: no, as long as use
affects function(s) of TM
 Barrett: Yes
Key: what function?
Score-card
keywords
BX: mostly -  Portakabin
Trend towards TM use:
DE: split +/-  Bananabay
Fin. Express v Nowcom
AT: +
 Bergspechte
Hysitron v MTS
FR: +
 Google
Hearts on Fire
Rescuecom v Google
(2a) “Likelihood of confusion”
Basics
EU
US
 Identical sign for identical
products (!): presumption
 No presumption
 Otherwise: evidence, multifactor test
‘substantial’ evidence
 Multi-factor test
 Indirect confusion is also
sufficient
 association = factor.
Initial interest
Confusion
Less of an issue, because of
presumption
Often invoked
Actual Source
confusion
Often invoked in case TM is displayed in ad or website
Keyword context
Presentation; lay-out
factors:
Average consumer
Evidence ?
(3) Defenses - selection
Fair use
EU
US
 Now pending in Portakabin
Trend: often denied
 “Honest” use
 “Fair” use
“Necessary to use TM”
First sale
Now pending in Portakabin
?
Can never apply to ‘typo’
keywords.
Keyword context
Use of TM in Ad
factors:
Presentation of advertiser’s website
Link to advertiser’s website
Evaluation
Towards ‘sustainable’ (and profitable)
keyword advertising
 More clear lay-out
 Drop “Suggestion Tool” for third party TM’s
 Consistent uniform complaint policies
 “Towards best practices” ?
 Any questions ?
 [email protected]