17 replies to this topic

[websage]

From the Associated Press, this afternoon (Oct 24)

<snippet>
Louis Vuitton SA is suing Google and its French subsidiary for trademark infringement in the wake of a landmark ruling that could force the popular Internet search engine to change the way it sells advertising.
</snippet>

Does it look like some lawyers are preparing for a chunk of the IPO outcome?

[Jill]

WebSage, please post a link to the full article so we can better understand the situation.

Thanks!

Jill

[Searchaware]

Here's a full reference to the story - lots more links to it on Google News, ironically...

Louis Vuitton Sues Google Over Trademark

Simon

[websage]

Thanks, Searchaware.

[Scottie]

This has a lot of deeper implications for affiliates, resellers of used items, people selling "companion" items like how-to books or add-ons (not Louis Vuitton, but trademark holders in general).

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[OldWelshGuy]

I wouls say that they have every right to complain, as the rival companies are in effect 'passing off' if i went into a shop and asked for ' cellotape' would i be happy with a generic brand of sticky tape? probably yes as that brand name has passed into general use.

If i went in and asked for a burberry sweater, and was directed by the sales assistant to a section of jumpers then i 'might' assume that they were in fact Thomas Burberry sweaters and mistakenly buy one.

This is passing off, and IMO their rivals entered into this form of promotion with one thing in mind 'SPAMMING' web searchers looking for the trademarked company.

So i do not think these companies have a leg to stand on, quite why Google is being sued i am not sure, you can hardly sue the telephone company for deceptive telephone calls, or the mail service for deceptive mail, why then does the law treat the web any differently? all it is, is a different way of delivering the message. Unless that is, they are aguing that google offered these trademarks? we use copyrighted and trademarks all the time, if we build a store for a sport retailer we are likely to encounter some of the most guraded trademarks and copyrighted material in the world. In my T & C, I have a clause that states that the advertiser is responsible for all the content on the site, and that the advertiser will be responsible for obtaining the rights for the use of trademarked, and copyrighted material, they sign this, so in effect they are telling us that they have the right to use these trademarks.

Will they now sue the web hosting company for allowing the redirection of traffic via an illegal marketing form?

I just wish that the lawyers would apply 'real world' law to online incidents.

[OldWelshGuy]

I am just off to write out 100 times

'I must use the spell checker'

[fred]

you can hardly sue the telephone company for deceptive telephone calls, or the mail service for deceptive mail, why then does the law treat the web any differently?

So true

I couldn't agree more with OldWelshGuy

In my T & C, I have a clause that states that the advertiser is responsible for all the content on the site, and that the advertiser will be responsible for obtaining the rights for the use of trademarked, and copyrighted material, they sign this, so in effect they are telling us that they have the right to use these trademarks.

what does T & C stand for ?

as for the content of your T & C , it's a great idea to put such a clause.
I will had it to mine

by the way just click on the "Spell Check" button

[Scottie]

OWG- you have 5 minutes to edit your post so you can go back and use the spellchecker and no one will know.

You can edit your post after 5 minutes as well... you'll just get the dreaded "edited by..." line.

[webstream]

What if trademarked corporations inform the SEs in writing they do not want their trademark used in any advertisements and do not want it used as an AdWord?

Webstream

[Scottie]

I believe T&C stands for terms and conditions.

Webstream, the problem I have is this... what if I am a buyer/collector and my focus is Coca-Cola memorabilia? If I can't use Coca-Cola in my ad, how do I let people know what it is that I sell?

From Coca-Cola's standpoint, they want a strong market in advertising collectibles; it helps their image in many ways.

A while back Coca-Cola licensed their name and logo to be used on clothes. If I were a store selling these clothes, I wouldn't be able to advertise that if I couldn't use the word "Coca-Cola". There's a lot more to advertising trademarks than just competitiors...

[webstream]

Scottie,

I see a lot of manufacturers searching for ways to control the how, when and where with their trademark. Some are trying to stop all Internet selling of their products because they have a large, loyal brick-and-mortar customer base.

You have to understand in some industries the distribution channels are still accustomed to traditional marketing methods and long-time loyal base of traditional stores. Some even give exclusivity to resellers for a given area. Some have written policies stating you can only show published list prices on the Internet. Others say you can sell our products on the Net.

It is not that I agree with it, nor feel it should be done, I am just pointing out what some major companies are thinking about.

Webstream

[webstream]

I also see a lot of resellers who use the most popular brand names to drive shoppers to their web sites and then try to switch them to another lesser-known brand that they can make a higher profit on.

It's hard for a manufacturer to determine if this happens in a store, but it is pretty obvious on a web site and keyword searches.

Webstream

[OldWelshGuy]

What if trademarked corporations inform the SEs in writing they do not want their trademark used in any advertisements and do not want it used as an AdWord

would they have the balls to do this though? there are many legitimate advertisersd who have the right to use their trademarks, , the trademark holder could end up being sued themselves for an illegal 'restriction of trade'.

Surely the beef here is with the 'rogue element' rather than google, although google should have a little bit more savvy than to allow this obvious illegal method.

If however the user booked the adword without full deisclosure, then in the uk this would be deception, its a bit like spamming really, if you think it's spammy then it propbably is.

[webstream]

would they have the balls to do this though? there are many legitimate advertisersd who have the right to use their trademarks, , the trademark holder could end up being sued themselves for an illegal 'restriction of trade'.

Although, I think it's illegal and borders on price fixing, I have seen manufacturers threaten (in writing) to pull the line from legitimate aligned companies if they continue to sell their products on the Web.

What frightens or alarms many national companies are their resellers go from local exposure to global exposure when they jump on the World Wide Web. Your web site may have a great impact on how many people view a trademarked brand. Many companies are searching for ways to control the medium, in regards to their brand and trademarks. To me this is an almost impossible task, but some are committed to trying to block all avenues.

IMHO, I think you can find attorneys to sue anybody for anything these days. So trying to sue the SEs doesn't surprise me. Not that I agree with it, but it doesn't surprise me.

Webstream