Forum Moderators: goodroi
Luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton said Wednesday a Paris court had upheld a trademark ruling against Internet search leader Google Inc. and increased the damages it should receive in the case.The Paris Court of Appeals confirmed a February 2005 ruling by a Paris district court against Google for trademark counterfeiting and unfair competition and advertising, Louis Vuitton said in a statement.
...
Google's search results allowed merchants who sold counterfeit Vuitton goods to appear along with legitimate vendors, according to Vuitton.
Vuitton in trademark case - story [money.cnn.com]
So pretty soon the search engines are going to need detectives to go out to each merchant in the search results and make sure they are selling the real deal. TM infringement, ok, maybe but putting the responsibility on Google to determine is someone is selling knockoff sounds stupid.
[edited by: engine at 3:10 pm (utc) on June 29, 2006]
[edit reason] added snippet [/edit]
So if a well known retailler advertises Fendi bags in a local newspaper and they turn out to be counterfeits, would the newspaper be liable?
Yes the newspaper IS liable if it was properly informed about the counterfeits (false advertising and trade mark infringement) and was asked to stop, yet the newspaper continue to ignore these facts and feature the offending party.
Google is not the police.
It is not above the law either. Trademarks must be respected.
Part of me wishes that Google pulls out of France and a few other countries, but I know it's not a smart business decision.
Actually, I've been of the opinion for the last few years that it is the ONLY sensible option for most U.S. based internet companies.
The problem is that many of the laws of the two countries are incompatable. Following the French laws would mean that you run afoul of the US laws and vica-versa.
Just look what happened to yahoo a few years ago.
Companies (and people) need to think long and hard before they subject themselves to a jurisdiction where the laws are in conflict with the way you operate. And it isn't just France, there was a recent case where a news source was sued under Australian defamation laws, because they had an office in Australia and the article could be read on the US website from Australia.
Hell, it's even an issue within the United States, between different states. Just look at the lawsuit between Microsoft and Google over that VP, and the battle over whether it would be heard in WA or CA.
Personally, I would consider opening an office in a European country to cover France, but I certainly would not create enough of a presence to give the French courts juristiction.
Companies (and people) need to think long and hard before they subject themselves to a jurisdiction where the laws are in conflict with the way you operate.
Erm ... isn't it the other way round? It's the companies who break the law who are in conflict. ;)
You cannot be considered to be breaking a law if you are not subject to that law in the first place.
a Paris court had upheld a trademark ruling against Internet search leader Google Inc.
Dave I don't see it that way and neither did the court, whose decison was upheld. French law was in place before Google. Google moved into France and broke their law and this was proven, end of story.
Google is not the police.
Shouldn't it be only the legislators who make the rules? That a story for another time.
Read my lmost recent comment to you in relation to what I had written in the comment before that. You know, the bit you quoted:
Companies (and people) need to think long and hard before they subject themselves to a jurisdiction where the laws are in conflict with the way you operate.
See, if google had not subjected themselves to being under the juristiction of French law, then the law would not apply to them.
Obviously the court thinks that Google broke French law, there is no question or argument on that point. The point I was making was that Google should have thought about that before opening offices in France, and becoming subject to French laws. There was certainly plenty of warning from previous decision that could have tipped them off to the possible problems.
I never said or implied that they had not violate French Trademark law, so please get that idea out of your head and read what i actually wrote.
If Google had not given France juristiction over them by conducting businessx in France, then the ruing by the Paris court would (a) never have happened due to lack of juristiction or (b) not meant a damn thing because it would not have been enforcable in any way.
You could sue me in a Scotish court and even win a judgement against me, but it would be a waste of your own time and that of the court's. I don't live in Scotland, I have never been to Scotland, and I probably never will go there. Nor do I have any business interests or assets there. To put it simply, I am not subject to your Scotish laws.
I never said or implied that they had not violate French Trademark law, so please get that idea out of your head and read what i actually wrote.
No need to fly off the handle ... or as we say in Scotland, "keep the heid!" :)
