While working on incorporating the decision into my thesis when I realized that a small mistake had made its way into the German version of the ECJ’s judgement. [For a detailed analysis of the decision please refer to my previous post.]
Paragraphs 96 et seq. are might be crucial for the decision as some authors see a justification/explanation in the subsequent paragraphs for the statement in par. 95 that keyword advertising (in principle) does not infringe the advertising-function.
The second sentence of paragraph 97 reads in the English version as following:
“That display, which is, moreover, free of charge, means that the visibility to internet users of the goods or services of the proprietor of the trade mark is guaranteed, […].”
The same section in the German version reads as following:
“Infolge dieser Anzeige, die im Übrigen unentgeltlich ist, ist die Sichtbarkeit der Waren oder Dienstleistungen des Markeninhabers für den Internetnutzer gewährleistet, […].“
The word “Anzeige” used as the third word of the German version, actually means “advertisement” in English. The French version again uses the word “affichage“, which –to me limited knowledge– also means “display“.
Thus I assume that the use of the word “Anzeige” (advertisement) was a mistake and that the correct term (in accordance with the English as well as with the authentic French version) should be “Darstellung” (display).
Anyone disagreeing? I am just wondering how many authors will notice 😉