IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

More ‘fun’ with initial interest confusion

Following last week’s post where Arnold J found Marks & Spencer liable for buying ads on the keyword INTERFLORA because of the initial interest confusion, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the USA has heavily qualified when (perhaps that should be “if” or “if ever”) initial interest confusion can constitute trade mark infringement in the USA. The case is 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 2013 WL 3665627 (10th Cir… Read More

Keywords – Marks & Spencer infringes INTERFLORA TM

Marks & Spencer has been found to have infringed Interflora’s trade mark in the UK by ‘buying’ ads triggered by Google searches for the keyword INTERFLORA.

Google v ACCC

Following on from yesterday’s post, @davidstarkoff points out that: the transcript of the special leave application can be found here; and in due course, the submissions will appear here. The hearing of the appeal has been fixed for 11 September 2012.

ACCC v Google

Apparently, back on 25 June the High Court granted Google special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s ruling that Google is liable for the misleading ads placed by advertisers. Maybe the internet will be able to keep working in Australia after all. Austlii is only up to 20 June, at the time of posting. Lid dip “Law Geek Down Under“

Does anyone think Google is advertising the sponsored links?

The Full Federal Court in Australia does. The ACCC has successfully appealed the Google Adwords case for misleading and deceptive conduct. So, for example, Alpha Dog Trainging has been operating a dogtraining business for 12 years. Dog Training Australia (Ausdog) bought ads on the keywords Alpha Dog Training through Google’s Adwords program. One ad generated was: Alpha Dog Training  DogTrainingAustralia.com.au All Breeds. We come to you. No dog that can’t.. Read More

Google’s keywords advertising

News just in: Google’s placement of advertisements, generated through its AdWords program, on search results pages is not misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 52 TPA / s 18 ACL (I’m afraid you have to scroll down).  However, the advertiser’s use of another trader’s name in the headline for an advertisement which had nothing to do with that trade was. So for example, the Trading Post used the AdWords program.. Read More

Talk on keywords, adwords and trade marks

For anyone who may find some value in them, I have posted the slides from my IPSANZ talk ‘Of Keywords, Adwords and Trade Mark Infringers at Slideshare.

Google’s sale of ‘trademarked’ keywords does not infringe in EU

The European Court of Justice has ruled that the sale of ‘trademarked’ terms by Google as keyword triggers of advertising: From IPKat reports. According to the IPKat, the rulings themselves: 1. Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community.. Read More

Google’s trade mark policy

Yesterday (in the USA) Google’s new trade mark policy and complaint procedure came into force. All the details here. Australia is still in the regions where both text and keywords are monitored. Lid dip @TrademarkBlog (aka Marty Schwimmer)

Google’s sale of keywords could be trade mark use

Well, strictly speaking, the 2nd Circuit in the USA has held that Google’s sale of keywords may be use in commerce. Rescuecom had sued Google for trademark infringement by selling advertisements (sponsored links) triggered by Rescuecom’s trademark. The District Court had dismissed the claim on the grounds that Google’s conduct was not use in commerce. So now it goes back to the District Court. Of course, Google’s conduct, if were.. Read More