By Estelle Dumout, 20 October 2003 18:15
NEWS Google's French site has committed an embarrassing - and potentially damaging - blunder regarding its Adwords marketing strategy. The company recently sold the keywords "bourse des vols" (flight market) within the framework of its Adwords marketing. Only it forgot to check that it wasn't already someone's registered trademark and its understandably aggrieved owner, an online travel agent, has now had the search giant convicted for trademark infringement. Google's business practices are now in the crosshairs of French justice. Two companies who run the sites Bourse des Vols and Bourse des Voyages have had Google France convicted for copyright infringement' by the Nanterre civil court. The search engine will have to pay 70,000 in fines and interests with an additional 5,000 in costs. The heart of the dispute was Google's keywords, which are sold to advertisers via its Adwords advertising programme. When a user performs a search on a keyword, the companies who have bought the keywords are guaranteed a prominent position on the search engine's results page in the area reserved for sponsored links. The plaintiffs are Luteciel and Viaticum both run by Fabrice Dariot. In his suit, Dariot accused Google of having sold its trademarks to rival tourism sites under the Adwords scheme trademarks which were duly registered with the French National Industrial Ownership Institute. The sponsored links for the site appeared when a user typed in the relevant key words in the search box, even if the competitors only bought the French word for 'travel', 'market' or 'flight' under Google's broadmatch system. Google refused to settle out of court, unlike Overture and E-spotting. In the first instance, the plaintiffs not only raised the trademark issue with Google France, but also with the two search rivals, explained Viaticum's lawyer, Cyril Fabre. E-spotting and Overture both agreed to remove the links, while Google refused, landing the company in front of the Nanterre judge. In a break with companywide solidarity Google's French arm said that is should be its American parent in the dock, given that it provides the Adwords technology. Now, as well as the fines it has to pay, the judge told the site it is obliged to remove the contested links with the threat of an 1,500 fine for each contravention. Estelle Dumout writes for ZDNet France, translated by Jo Best
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. William Ashley
For single keywords which contrast patents unless it is something like klenex(tm) or spabdex(tm) etc.. or microsoft, I really don't see how if the services is allowed how it could restrict common words. Although I feel as though even tradmarks copyrighted names should not be able to be controlled although thats the system isn't it. Although in the case of selling optimization, unless the words are bought then why not can people write about microsoft without being sued? Or is that infringment? If they don't buy a service then why should that position not be available to someone else. Its word searching. Although generally the adwords is sorta disgusting in a reference to data searching outside of marketing and branding, which would be nice to see go away once and for all, its like popups only they don't pop up. But it generates revenues and represents capatalist society regardless of how twisted it is. Although I honestly don't see how government should be able to institute what services a search engine company is allowed to sell in reference to the way in which there service works. For instance is someone wants to place an ad in a newspaper net to a competitors article and that newspaper has prefered placements its fair game. Although it represents power of money over pure media google. Of course a level playing feild is where search engines should be however in actions such as google bombing and many other methods there are ways to which others have higher placement. For instance why does my name William Ashley turn up pages and pages of dead people, I would hope that living people were higher ranked then dead ones.. however due to say ancestory.com methods its next to imposible to find me.. and how many living william ashleys are there in the world? if the dead ones come befor the living ones that just means that it will be harder to find current information. Although in the case of commercial media I honestly feel unless using the name with a "defined meaning" which is not equally acceable in this case via a commerce then there is an issue that is blacklisting and boycotting. It would be nice if the two systems were seprate that is adwords and googlenetsearch as two seperate instances, however due to media's commercial connection and an attempt to generate revenue and perhaps some publicity and more intrest in the IPO offering said to be around mark future profit potential and competitivity are issues that need to be addressed. Ideally there wouldn't be a capitalist society nor commercialism nor marketing, however it seems to be an evolving facet within western media. To say what services can be used in referencing ad space as to restrict preferential placement is contrary to commercial media marketing. Although supporting protection of usage, although that is contrary to freedom of press, which is in a sense of humour exactly what this is about. That is that judge does not support freedom of press in commercial application, he's conservative.
2. William Ashley
note there were a few typos in there... for instance why not instead of why spabdex spandex etc.. etc..