tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4628648062965627809..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Liability for links and adwords, German style -- and a visit to Google TranslateVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79283798743742141342009-11-02T13:09:41.780+00:002009-11-02T13:09:41.780+00:00Me again...
Dear Uli,
1: Sorry for all the spe...Me again... <br /><br />Dear Uli, <br /><br />1: Sorry for all the spelling mistakes & missing words in my first comment. <br /><br />2: I find it hard to agree with you. The case at hand is, at least in my opinion, NOT a keyword advertising case. It is a meta tag/SEO case from 2004(!). <br /><br />3: Thus the BGH has NOT "dared" to decide on any issue pending at the ECJ as Keyword Advertising and Meta tags are, in the opinion of many authors, seen to be different cups of tea [<i>Fezer</i>, MarkenR, 4th, 85,(87; <i>Viefhues</i> in <i>Hoeren/Sieber</i>, Handbuch MultimediaR, 19th 2008, 246, 165].<br /><br />4: The sections you've cited relates, in my opinion, only to the burden of evidence. <br /><br />5: About the liability issue... sounds pretty reasonable for me, although I find it a bit harsh compared to the way the "<i>broad match</i>" keyword option got treated. What do you think? <br /><br />Kind regards, <br /><br />AustrotrabantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88749629080542900732009-11-02T09:59:00.241+00:002009-11-02T09:59:00.241+00:00First of all: Yes, true. But wasn't the focus ...First of all: Yes, true. But wasn't the focus of the section you cited as "a)" mainly directed towards the question of the "burden of evidence" as this has been a problem in previous cases? <br /><br />I agree with you that there a references pending which most probably will cover this issue. Still, as the GA has indicated already at multiple occasions his first opinion only covers the "booking process & the display of ads" and he has stated expressively that in the Google France opinion he question of whether the trade mark or a similar sign (tm) was used in the text... and I personally would be very surprised to see that the GA finds the use of the tm in the text of the ad not to affect the function of origin... <br /><br />Still, don't you think that it might be not a big challenge for national courts to deem the use of a tm to it as an act of unfair competition? (as the French courts did and also the OGH is feeling very tempted to do...) <br /><br />Kind regards, <br /><br />austrotrabant <br /><br /><br />PS: I am very surprised to see that the BGH hasn't sticked to his old/proven/previous terminology which I've found much more comprehensible... different senate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47046289749356842082009-11-01T19:27:08.426+00:002009-11-01T19:27:08.426+00:00I wonder whether the ever cynical and often wise M...I wonder whether the ever cynical and often wise Merpel would think that Google's translation service could infringe copyright? <br /><br />This is something to consider if American class action lawyers or continental activists in the EU find themselves with not enough to do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com