Thread: EU backs Google in trademark row

A senior judge at the European Court of Justice has intervened in an ongoing row between Google and brand names, such as Louis Vuitton.


Google insists it respects
trademarks

Advocate General Poiares Maduro has said that, in his legal opinion, Google has not infringed trademark rights by allowing advertisers to buy keywords.

Brand owners argue that the system is infringing trademarks by allowing firms to piggyback on their brands.

The legal opinion will be seen as at least a partial victory for Google.

The long-running legal dispute will not be ruled on officially until early next year, although this non-binding legal opinion is likely to carry a good deal of weight.

Three brand owners, including LVMH, the firm behind the Louis Vuitton brand, are challenging Google in the French courts and the European Court of Justice has been asked to rule on the issue.

Consumer benefit

The ruling concerns so-called sponsored links, the section which appears to the right of the main search page, is where advertisers who have bought keywords appear. It creates the majority of its income through sales of these links.

Brand owners argue that many of the advertisers buying keywords - such as "Louis Vuitton" - are selling fake or replica versions of their goods.

However, the Advocate General said that linking other companies to brand names does not constitute a trademark infringement.

"The mere display of relevant sites in response to keywords is not enough to establish a risk of confusion on the part of consumers as to the origin of goods or services," said a statement issued on behalf of the judge.

However, he warned that Google could be held liable if brand owners could show that Google's ads had damaged their trademarks and warned that the company could face similar legal action in the future.

Louis Vuitton said that may pave "the way for different national jurisdictions to find Google liable as this process continues".

Google said in a statement: "We note with interest the Advocate General's opinion. We now await the decision of the European Court of Justice in a few months time.

"We believe that selecting a keyword to trigger the display of an ad does not amount to trademark infringement, and that consumers benefit from seeing more relevant information rather than less.

"We also believe that consumers are smart and are not confused when they see a variety of ads displayed in response to their search queries."

Intel has said it is looking forward to its day in court when its appeal against a record fine imposed by EU anti-trust regulators is heard.


Intel's chips power most of the
world's personal computers

This week the European Commission published data to support its case against the American chip maker.

It detailed evidence from Intel clients that led to a $1.45bn fine for illegally shutting out rival AMD.

"I can't wait to get our side of the story out in the public," Intel President Paul Otellini told the BBC.

"I continue to believe and assert they (the European Commission) have got it wrong. We have appealed and we will win on appeal," said Mr Otellini following his keynote address at the company's annual developer forum in San Francisco.

In May the European Commission, the European Union's executive, ruled that Intel had paid computer makers to postpone or scrap plans to launch products using AMD's chips, given illegal rebates and paid a retailer to stock only computers with Intel chips.

It said these "illegal" competitive practices harmed consumers.

AMD first filed a formal complaint with the European Commission against Intel in 2000, in what it alleged where anti-trust practices.

It was not until July 2007, following high-profile raids on Intel offices, that the company was formally charged with breaches of competition rules.

'Naked restrictions'

This week the Commission published a 518-page document that detailed its case that resulted in $1bn fine.

Among the emails and company records was one communication from US computer firm Dell in 2003.

According to the EU's findings, it noted that Intel's retaliation "could be severe and prolonged with impact to all lines of business" if Dell were to start buying chips from Intel competitor AMD.


It may take two years before
the appeal is settled

An email from an executive of Chinese high-tech giant Lenovo was also cited in the EU decision which spoke of Intel's "naked restrictions" on business partners.

"Late last week Lenovo cut a lucrative deal with Intel. As a result of this, we will not be introducing AMD-based products in 2007 for our Notebook products," the December 2006 email said.

There was similar evidence concerning an Intel deal with Hewlett Packard.

Intel has roughly 80% of the market versus AMD's 20% share.

'Unfair'

Europe's top competition watchdog had charged Intel with using illegal loyalty rebates to squeeze rivals out of the market for central processing units which are described as the brains inside personal computers.

Intel has defended such rebates, arguing that computer makers approach the company looking for price reductions.

"With the publication of this decision, you can see for yourselves precisely the facts on which the decision was based and how Intel broke the law," EU Commission spokesman Jonathon Todd told reporters in Brussels.

Intel has challenged the ruling and following the publication of these documents went on the offensive.


Intel boss Paul Otellini criticised
the release of documents

"They (EU prosecutors) have consistently ignored information that would have painted an entirely different story about those memos.

"We are precluded from releasing our own documents, which I thought was a bit unfair," said Mr Otellini. "In the Intel case I think they have certainly overstepped."

It is understood a ruling on Intel's appeal could take as long as two years.

Source: Code:
BBC NEWS | Technology | Intel on offensive in EU case