• Connect
  • Bookmark Us
  • AF Twitter
  • AF YouTube
  • AF LinkedIn
  • Subscribe
  • Subscription Link
Arent Fox
  • Firm

    • History

    • Awards & Recognitions

    • Diversity

      • Overview
      • Diversity Scholarship
      • Employees on Diversity
      • LGBT Initiative
      • Women’s Leadership Development Initiative
    • Alumni

    • Pro Bono

      • Overview
      • Current Pro Bono Work
      • Community Involvement
      • Pro Bono Newsletter
      • Pro Bono Awards & Honors
      • FAQ: Pro Bono & Working at Arent Fox
    • Leadership

      • Firm Management
      • Administrative Leadership
  • Deals & Cases

  • People

  • Practices & Industries

    • Practices

      • Advertising, Promotions & Data Security
      • Government Relations
      • Antitrust & Competition Law
      • Health Care
      • Appellate
      • Insurance & Reinsurance
      • Bankruptcy & Financial Restructuring
      • Intellectual Property
      • Commercial Litigation
      • International Trade
      • Communications, Technology & Mobile
      • Labor & Employment
      • Construction
      • Municipal & Project Finance
      • Consumer Product Safety
      • OSHA
      • Corporate & Securities
      • Political Law
      • ERISA
      • Real Estate
      • Environmental
      • Tax
      • FDA Practice (Food & Drug)
      • Wealth Planning & Management
      • Finance
      • White Collar & Investigations
      • Government Contractor Services
    • Industries

      • Automotive
      • Energy Law & Policy
      • Fashion, Luxury Goods & Retail
      • Government Real Estate & Public Buildings
      • Hospitality
      • Life Sciences
      • Long Term Care & Senior Living
      • Media & Entertainment
      • Medical Devices
      • Nonprofit
      • Sports
  • Newsroom

    • Alerts

    • Events

    • Media Mentions

    • Press Releases

    • Social Media

    • Subscribe

  • Careers

    • Lawyers

    • Law Students

    • Professional Staff

  • Contact

    • Washington, DC

    • New York, NY

    • Los Angeles, CA

    Alerts

    • Newsroom Overview
      • Alerts

        Alerts by Criteria

        E.g., 1 / 21 / 2013
        E.g., 1 / 21 / 2013
      • Events
      • Media Mentions
      • Press Releases
      • Social Media
      • Subscribe

    You are here

    Home » Newsroom » Alerts

    Share

    • Printer-friendly version
    • Send by email
    • A Title
    • A Title
    • A Title
    • A
    • A
    • A

    Google Loses Keyword Case in France

    May 29, 2007

    The court in Societe des Hotels Meridien v. S.A.R.L. Google France ruled, on December 16, 2004, that the Google French subsidiary infringed the trademarks of Le Meridien by allowing competitors to bid on these marks as keywords and have ads appear prominently in search results. The court ordered Google to stop linking ads to Le Meridien trademarks or face a fine of 150 euros per day. Google also must remove in the future any new infringing ads within 72 hours after being notified by Le Meridien.

    Significantly, the court singled out the Google AdWords Keyword Tool as being particularly problematic. The Tool suggests keywords that an advertiser can purchase after the advertiser inputs terms of interest. The problem is that the list of suggested words includes trademarks, even though Google?s policy outside of the United States and Canada in not to sell trademarks as keywords. The court ordered Google to assure that the AdWords Keyword Tool stopped suggesting MERIDIEN and LE MERIDIEN or combinations of those marks with the words hotel or resort via the Tool. According to reports, Google plans to appeal.

    Earlier last year, two French travel agencies, Luteciel and Viaticum, successfully sued Google in France for trademark infringement for this practice. The agencies sued Google France for allowing third party advertisers to use their registered marks BOURSE DES VOLES and BOURSE DES VOYAGES as keywords. In October 2003, a French court ordered Google to pay a fine of 75,000 euros and cease allowing advertisers to link keyword advertising to trademarks. The court stated that when users perform searches for registered trademarks, Google should find a way to block the appearance of ads of parties who have no rights in those marks. Google has appealed the decision.

    Three similar lawsuits have been filed against Google in France and are pending. In August 2003, LVMH Moet Hennessey Louis Vuitton SA filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Google France arising out of its keyword-triggered advertising program. In April 2004, a major French insurance company, AXA, filed a lawsuit against Google for allowing competitors to buy online advertisements which appear when searches are conducted for AXA registered marks AXA and DIRECT ASSURANCE. Also pending in France is an action by Rentabiliweb, a French company, which alleges that Google sold its trademark as a keyword to a rival company, Tel 4 Money.

    As noted in our previous Arent Fox alert on this subject, a number of cases on this topic remain pending in the United States. We will continue to follow this issue closely.

    Related People

    • Jason J. Mazur

    Related Practices

    Intellectual Property
    • Firm
    • Deals & Cases
    • People
    • Practices & Industries
    • Newsroom
    • Careers
    • Contact

    Footer Main

    • Firm
    • Deals & Cases
    • People
    • Practices & Industries
    • Newsroom
    • Careers
    • Subscribe
    • Alumni
    • Diversity
    • Legal Notice
    • Privacy Policy
    • Social Media Disclaimer
    • Nondiscrimination
    • Site Map
    • Client/Staff Login

    Offices

    • Washington, DC
      1717 K Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: 202.857.6000
    • New York, NY
      1675 Broadway
      New York, New York 10019
      Tel: 212.484.3900
    • Los Angeles, CA
      555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
      Los Angeles, California 90013
      Tel: 213.629.7400
    • © Copyright 2013 Arent Fox LLP. All Rights Reserved.

      Legal Disclaimer
      Contents may contain attorney advertising under the laws of some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.