February 8, 2012

Google’s AdWords Policy Expanded to Europe and Canada

U.S. and European courts continue to endorse Google, Inc.’s business practice of allowing advertisers to bid on third-party trademarks as keywords that generate the advertisements appearing alongside Google search results.

Google recently announced the expansion of its U.S. policy to Europe, Canada and Ireland. Previously, advertisers in these countries were not allowed to bid on keywords that corresponded to a competitor’s trademarks, or use a third-party trademark in the advertising text. The new European policy, like the current U.S. policy, will allow third-party trademarks to appear in the advertising as long as the use is not confusing.    
 
The change in the European AdWords policy follows the European Court of Justice’s March 2010 decision that Google did not infringe trademarks when allowing advertisers to bid on trademarks as keywords. U.S. courts have reached similar conclusions, often based on the rationale that Google is not competing with the businesses whose trademarks it sells through the AdWords advertising program. 
 
Most recently, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Rosetta Stone Ltd’s trademark infringement suit against Google. Rosetta Stone alleged that Google infringed its trademarks by allowing third-parties to not only bid on Rosetta Stone’s trademarks, but also use the trademarks in the sponsored link titles and advertising text. The Virginia court did not believe that customers would be confused between sponsored links and the search results and found Google’s use of the trademark terms to be a functional purpose. The Virginia decision is consistent with a March 2010 decision from the Eastern District of California, which dismissed similar trademark infringement claims against Google based on the AdWords program.
 
Although courts are approving the use of trademarks as keywords to generate advertisements, trademark owners are permitted to file a complaint with Google for use of trademarks in advertising text when that text is likely to cause confusion or is critical or negative. Google will investigate and remove advertisements it feels violate the policy. More information on the Google AdWord’s trademark policy is available here.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Partner

Amy Vandamme is a partner in the firm’s Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Groups. Ms. Vandamme specializes in intellectual property litigation, with a special concentration on trademark enforcement and infringement cases. Ms. Vandamme has extensive experience litigating cases involving claims of trademark and trade dress infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, domain name infringement and false advertising. Ms. Vandamme has handled trademark matters in federal courts across the country and has also represented clients in trademark...

414.225.2753

About the Author

Associate

Katrina Hull is a member of the Intellectual Property Practice Group. Her practice focuses on trademark and copyright law, including enforcement, international and domestic trademark prosecution, trademark clearance searching, licensing, unfair competition, and Internet issues.

414.225.4985

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.