For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Wednesday, 4 June 2008

Liens sponsorisés: au secours!!!

The IPKat has stumbled on the three cases referred by the French Cour de Cassation to the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) late last month for a preliminary ruling on the legality of adwords and sponsored links (there's an explanatory note here on Legalis.net for French-speakers). The cases are (i) Google v Viaticum Luteciel, (ii) Google France, Google Inc v Louis Vuitton Malletier and (iii) Google v Cnrrh et autres.

Legalis.net explains in brief [with much help from Babel Fish]: did Google infringe trade mark rights when proposing, within the framework of its Adwords service, the reproduction of those marks in its list of key words? In the three cases mentioned above, the Cour de Cassation did not answer this question but chose to place its trust in the ECJ. The questions referred address the liablity of a party that benefits from offering a keyword service on the internet. The first question asks whether the service-provider, by suggesting key words, makes a use of the mark which its holder is entitled to prohibit under Article 5 of Council Directive 89/104 . In Vuitton, the Court asks specifically concerning the position of the holder of a famous mark. A further question is whether, if in general the use of a mark will not be prohibited, the person receiving benefit may be regarded as providing the service of information storage under Article 14 of the E-commerce Directive, since Google would have no means of ascertaining its legal position before being informed by an advertiser of the illicit use of its mark.

Anyway, the IPKat is desperate to obtain English language translations of all three of the Cour de Cassation references. Do any readers either have then or know of their existence? Or is there anyone out there who is proficient at translation and has nothing to do? If you can help the IPKat in his quest for the true meaning of the judgments in question, please post your information below or email the IPKat here, with the subject heading Cassation. Merpel says, how very convenient for Google to be involved in all three cases ...

AdWords here
Ad words here
Add words here and, for the rather naughty, here
Conduct your own Google search for "cat" here

3 comments:

Jeremy said...

A little bird has just emailed this link to a helpful feature on this reference in Out-Law:
http://www.out-law.com/page-9165-theme=print
Thank you, birdie!

Frédéric said...

Class 46 had mentionned the Vuitton decision. The other two Cassation decisions are in the same vein.

Jeremy said...

Lone Prehn (Zacco) has emailed the IPKat to say: "You can try to go to http://translate.google.dk/translate_t and type in the website with the French references and then ask for translation from French to English. In a split second, you will have a fairly good translation. I just tried it with http://www.legalis.net/jurisprudence-imprimer.php3?id_article=2314 and it worked fine". Many thanks, Lone!

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':