Cederic Manara a French author was so kind to pointed out that a small excerpt of this blog got mentioned in a side-note of an Madras High Court decision on Google AdWords. (For a description of the case please see the SPIC IP blog ) The post concerned is a post written as a response/summary of the IPKat’s Google AdWords Rapid Response Seminar this March.
“[ Note: In an opinion titled “From Biblical Questions to Delphian Confusion: ECJ’s decision on Google France C-236/08”, posted in Austrotrabant’s blog, the decision of the European Court of Justice was criticised as one where the Biblical statement “‘Seek and you shall find’ found it’s end in a judgment which is as confusing as a statement of the Oracle in Delphi.]”
Not having had time yet to read the whole decision (36.000 words = 50 pages of text ) it seems to concern the use of a third party trademarks not only as a keyword to trigger ads for ‘online matrimonial service’ but also the use in the text of the ad. Furthermore also AdWords Trademark Policy seems to be of importance in this case, in which Google itself was the defendant.
Talking about the length of the decision Prashant Reddy has put it this way:
To put it mildly, Justice V. Ramasubramanian’s judgment is the Encylcopedia of all the internet related trademark litigation that has taken place in every major jurisdiction on this planet.
Readers interested in the subject are however advised also to check out the next issue of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP) which will most likely contain an article in English by Stephan Ott and myself discussing in quite some detail the ECJ’s Google France as well as the subsequent BergSpechte decision: ‘It’s the Ad text, stupid’ – Cryptic Answers by the ECJ won’t Help to establish Legal Certainty for Online Advertisers.