ISP-Liability & Media Law
Client Alert | 3 min read | 12.01.09
Other sections of this issue:
Privacy & Data Protection | ISP-Liability & Media Law | Electronic Communications & IT
On 22 September 2009, the Advocate General Poiares Maduro suggested to Europe’s Court of Justice that Google has not committed a trade mark infringement by allowing advertisers to select, in AdWords, keywords corresponding to trade marks. However, in individual cases Google might be held liable for the content of AdWords advertisements.
Introduction
Through Google's search engine, internet users can search information by entering keywords. On entering keywords, users are presented with a list of so-called natural results selected and ranked according to their relevance to the keywords, determined by objective criteria.
Displayed alongside with the natural results, the user might also find sponsored results with small advertisements. These sponsored results are generated through Google's advertising system called 'AdWords'. Through AdWords, Google allows advertisers, in return for payment, to select keywords so that their ads are displayed to internet users in response to the entry of those keywords in Google's search engine.
Request for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de Cassation
In France, a number of trade mark owners initiated legal proceedings against Google on the basis of the use of their marks as sponsored keywords. Sponsored keywords were used to display ads for sites offering counterfeit versions of the products covered by the trade mark or identical or similar products of competitors.
Europe's Court of Justice was asked by the French Cour de cassation whether or not Google had committed a trade mark infringement by making available such keywords to advertisers and whether or not, according to the E-Commerce Directive, the company can be held liable for the content featured in AdWords.
Opinion of the Advocate General
On 22 September 2009, the Advocate General Poiares Maduro suggested to the Court of Justice that Google has not committed a trade mark infringement by allowing advertisers to select, in AdWords, keywords corresponding to trade marks. Also displaying advertisements in response to keywords corresponding to trademarks would not necessarily constitute a trade mark infringement. The Advocate General considers that the mere display of relevant sites in response to keywords is not enough to establish a risk of confusion on the part of consumers as to the origin of goods or services.
Furthermore, the Advocate General commented that instead of being able to prevent, through trade mark protection, any possible use, trade mark owners would have to point to specific instances giving rise to Google's liability in the context of illegal damage to their trade marks.
In this regard, the Advocate General opined that where Google has a direct pecuniary interest in internet users clicking on advertisement links, Google does not provide a neutral information vehicle applying objective criteria. As service providers seeking to benefit from a liability exemption under the E-Commerce Directive should remain neutral as regards the information they carry or host, the liability exemption for hosts provided for in the E-Commerce Directive should not apply to the content featured in AdWords, according to the Advocate General.
Hence, in individual cases where the content of an AdWords advertisement would constitute a trademark infringement, trademark owners would be entitled to hold Google liable for this in the Advocate General's opinion.
Although the opinion of an Advocate General is not binding on the Court, quite often it is followed by the Court and thus provides a strong indication on how the Court will rule.
References: Advocate General's Opinion in Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08
Links: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo1_6308/
For more information, contact: Jan Janssen.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
