Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T09:46:52.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trademark Use and Liability of Referencing Service In Keyword Advertising – Google AdWords and Trademark Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christian Volkmann
Christian Volkmann*
Affiliation:
Merleker Mielke, Berlin.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08 Google France SARL, Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C.236/08) and Google France SARL v. Viaticum, Luteciel SARL (C-237/08) and Google France SARL v. Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL, Pierre-Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin, Tiger SARL (C-238/08)

1. The proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical with that trade mark which that advertiser has, without the consent of the proprietor, selected in connection with an internet referencing service, goods or services identical with those for which that mark is registered, in the case where that advertisement does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party.

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 450 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Judgment of 23 March 2010.

2 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, para. 51.

3 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, para. 52.

4 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, para. 65.

5 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, paras. 65, 69.

6 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, paras. 84–85.

7 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, paras. 96–98.

8 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, para. 54, paras. 100–105.

9 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, paras. 56–57.

10 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, para. 106.

11 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, para. 106.

12 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, paras. 112–113.

13 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, para. 113.

14 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, para. 117.

15 Case 236/08 to 238/08, supra note 2, paras. 116–117.

16 FCJ, 11.12.2009 – I ZR 166/07, K&R 2010, 496 et sqq. and RC Hamburg, 12 March 2010 – 308 O 640/08, MMR 2010, 488 for copyright law.

17 Recital 42 of Directive 2000/31.

18 Stadler, MMR-Fokus 5 (2010), p. VIII.