Reproduction permitted for personal use only. For reprints and reprint permission, contact

Internet trademark war goes international

The trademark war continues over Google Inc.'s popular and profitable AdWords program. AdWords allows advertisers to purchase "sponsored links" that appear as a result of Google searches that use specific words, which can be trademarks of third parties. In my last article, I discussed a U.S. District Court decision that allowed Google to use the trademarks of Geico Insurance to trigger sponsored links from Geico's competitors. I warned that the Google victory was likely to be only an early win in what promises to be a long war.

It didn't take too long for the war to expand. It has gone international, and Google has now lost a battle in France. On February 4, a French court ordered Google, Inc. (essentially and, Google's French affiliate) to stop selling advertising that used the terms "Louis Vuitton," "Vuitton," or "LV" as part of its AdWords program. It also imposed a €200,000 fine (about $425,000).

The French court decision is a lower-court decision. It adds a new, but not unexpected, wrinkle to the war over Google's AdWords program.

To appreciate this you should understand that, fundamentally, trademarks are "local" in scope. In other words, trademark rights extend to a limited territory. In the past, registration was generally made on a state or national basis, but the trend is toward allowing registration on a regional basis (for example, registration in the European Community).

Generally, trademark rights arise in two ways – as a result of use or, in some situations, registration. No matter how the rights arise, a trademark recognized under the laws of one country or region does not, except in some situations not relevant here, confer trademark rights in another country or region. Because of the "local" character of trademark rights, trademark law is ill-suited to deal with the Internet. The laws simply have not been written to anticipate the transnational character of a global information network.
The latest Google decision is an example of this. While a court in the United States has ruled that Google can use the trademarks of other entities (such as Geico) as part of its AdWords program, a court in France has ruled it cannot. Since Google is accessible virtually everywhere, it is possible that identical actions by Google can be both legally allowed and prohibited at the same time. This presents a significant dilemma for Internet companies like Google.

In the United States, and presumably in most countries and "regions" with a governing authority, conflicts in what is legally allowable can ultimately be resolved. In the United States, this would be resolved by Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court. However, there is no body that can be the ultimate arbiter of the rights of trademark owners under the range of legal systems that have some ability to regulate the use of trademarks on the Internet. As a result, trademark rights in Internet commerce will continue for some period of time to be uncertain and subject to significant risk.

That said, the facts in the French case involving Google are somewhat different than the United States case, and it is by no means certain that – given the same facts as those in the French court – a United States court would rule differently.

In the U.S. case, Google sold sponsored links using third-party trademarks, but the third party trademarks never actually appeared in the ads. In the French case, searchers using a query containing the term "Louis Vuitton" or "Vuitton" discovered advertising that actually contained the terms Louis Vuitton or Vuitton to offer fake Vuitton products. It could be argued that the United States case involved "competitive advertising" while the French case involved abetting counterfeiting. Regardless, the French decision will not be the last word on trademark rights.

It does, however, open an international door, at least for larger companies with worldwide operations, to forum shopping (bringing your case in a jurisdiction that has laws favorable to your position) when trademark rights are implicated. It is likely that Google will appeal the French ruling, and I would expect that it and similarly situated companies will be actively working to establish an international framework for harmoniously resolving trademark- related disputes.

Rob Petershack is a partner at the law firm Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP, focusing his practice on intellectual property law with an emphasis on trademark law as well as software and licensing agreements. He can be reached at

The opinions expressed herein or statements made in the above column are solely those of the author, & do not necessarily reflect the views of Wisconsin Technology Network, LLC. (WTN). WTN, LLC accepts no legal liability or responsibility for any claims made or opinions expressed herein.


Janett responded 9 years ago: #1

I think that LV should go after E-bay for Trade mark misuse. Also many other companies can bring up a law suit to e-bay for trademark misuse. They never check items, unkess someone sends a report to them that a sertain item is a fake, so you can always find people on e-bay who sell items that are fake.
And I believe that e-bay should be responsible for all and I mean all of the items listed on it, since e-bay is chargin people to put items on its auction. e-bay basically is taking part of every selling item.
Please keep my personal information private.

-Add Your Comment


Comment Policy: WTN News accepts comments that are on-topic and do not contain advertisements, profanity or personal attacks. Comments represent the views of the individuals who post them and do not necessarily represent the views of WTN Media or our partners, advertisers, or sources. Comments are moderated and are not immediately posted. Your email address will not be posted.

WTN Media cannot accept liability for the content of comments posted here or verify their accuracy. If you believe this comment section is being abused, contact

WTN Media Presents