tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post582513417464193632..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: BGH: Full text of AdWord referral now availableVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9427553545093669002009-03-05T20:52:00.000+00:002009-03-05T20:52:00.000+00:00Hello IPKat,my comment relates back to an earlier ...Hello IPKat,<BR/>my comment relates back to an earlier posting concerning this case, where the IPKat expressed his concern over the term 'use as a trade mark'. Is this an example where legislature is limping behind technology? I would assume that the necessity to use the mark 'as a trade mark' was conceived to prevent the registered user from hogging a desirable mark, but now it may be a sneaky way to permit infringement, because arguably in this case the third party and search engine designers didn't use the mark as a trade mark, which the operators and designers of the search engines, who use the mark to guide users to their own product, would be rather aware of. As technology marches ahead, I would expect courts to be flexible in their interpretation, in order to give effect to the underlying intent of the law. Or is that naive?<BR/>Also, I look at the unofficial translation from German to English, and thought it was perfectly fine.<BR/><BR/>Good nightUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12414931834140741854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35705857660033325662009-03-04T12:05:00.000+00:002009-03-04T12:05:00.000+00:00a rather long question!a rather long question!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com