tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5079451155216949980..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The Google AdWords ruling: some comments on today's three casesVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57920928135190796142010-03-24T11:50:59.153+00:002010-03-24T11:50:59.153+00:00Concerning the liability of advertisers: It has a...<b>Concerning the liability of advertisers: </b> It has already been clear in the past that misleading advertisement or advertising bearing the TM of a competitor in the text (description) of the ad is violating the TM holders' rights. Such cases have been and will be in the future be dealt with under trademark law and law of unfair competition. <br /><br /><br /><b>Concerning the liability of Google's AdWords service</b> we shall see how the courts interpret such things as the Keyword Tool, but in fact Google is there doing not much more than telling the advertiser which search terms are somehow related to each other. The red "<i>Did you mean...</i>" function on the Google website is pretty much the same. And I truly wonder how AdWords should be influencing the advertiser when drafting the text of the description? <br /><br /><br /><b>So what is the current fuss all about?</b> Maybe lawyers should to accept that "<i>Google Bashing</i>" is not a sustainable way to maintain business. At the same time TM-owners will have to accept that if they believe that the Cost-per-Click price is the only thing they need to worry about they might have missed some developments in online advertising. <br /><br /><br />Maybe the lawyers-fraction should stop moaning about their future prospects but for once actually be <i>productive</i> and start drafting a European Framework for Advertising on Search Engines? In my opinion the meeting tomorrow could be a god starting point. <br /><br /><br />Kind regards, <br /><br />austrotrabantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com