French Appeals Court Rules Against Google

Written by Evan Schuman
June 28th, 2006

Wednesday’s decision supports leather goods manufacturer Louis Vuitton’s claim that a search for Vuitton should only return sites and ads that mention Vuitton and not those that mention knock-offs or competitors.

A French court of appeals on Wednesday sided with leather goods manufacturer Louis Vuitton and ruled that Google had violated trademark, unfair competition and advertising laws by showing ads for Vuitton rivals when people searched for Vuitton.

The closely-watched case?which involves Google having to pay a fine of about $250,000?has huge implications for wide range of search and related Web activities.

The Web is intended to be convenient for the searcher and the assumption is that someone searching for one company’s products might also be interested in rivals. In other words, the Web assumes that the person is likely searching for handbags and is using Vuitton as a way to start such a search, in the way that someone might search for Toyota or Ford if they are interested in cars.

Vuitton’s efforts are aimed at making the search engine more of an advertising/marketing service for the merchant than a research service for the customer. The Web’s roots suggests it’s intended to be more of a populist tool.

The Vuitton case raises other issues, such as whether a global company such as Google can be forced to abide by the laws of many different countries.

The International Herald-Tribune recently quoted Bertrand Legret, a spokesman for Google’s French subsidiary, as saying, “You cannot make a rule to forbid all usage of a name. There is some difference with domestic rules and brand standards. But it’s the responsibility of the advertiser to control or do a different campaign in different countries.”

Legret makes an excellent point, but the French courts saw it differently. I’ll try and avoid suggesting that Vuitton held the home court advantage.

Vuitton issued a statement Wednesday that it was “very pleased with the ruling” and that Vuitton “is more determined than ever to pursue its relentless battle against counterfeiting, in particular on the Internet, in order to safeguard its intellectual property and the interests of its customers.”

That last part of the statement is, in my view, key. Is this decision truly in the best interests of Vuitton’s customers? It’s clearly in the best interest of Vuitton’s sales reps.

Last year, when the Paris District Court made the initial ruling that was upheld Wednesday, issued a statement that said it was also “very pleased with the ruling.” I guess Vuitton’s executives are very easily “very pleased.” But the initial statement addressed the core issue and made a stronger case.

“This milestone ruling grants protection for the first time to both consumers and brand owners by finding that Google?s Adwords and Premium Sponsorship services as misleading advertising services,” the 2005 statement said. “It was absolutely unthinkable that a company like Google be authorized, in the scope of its advertising business, to sell the Louis Vuitton trademark to third parties, specifically to web sites selling counterfeits.”

In California, it’s not only thinkable, it’s fairly obvious. But is it legal? Is Google indeed trafficking on the brand name that companies like Vuitton paid for to sell ads. Candidly, yes, they are. But is that a bad thing ultimately for the common good?

The Web is part of the Internet’s network of networks and it’s strength and magic is in the unexpected pieces of information that come from following one web of knowledge to a connecting nearby Web of knowledge. In the commerce world, that means that a search for a well-known will also list related products, which will include rivals.

Ultimately, manufacturers, search engines and all other E-Commerce players will profit from a stronger competitive business environment. This French ruling deserves a Bronx Cheer.


One Comment | Read French Appeals Court Rules Against Google

  1. Kai Y. Tham Says:

    I read your article on the subject issue and this has got to be the dumbest decision I have seen in a long time.
    They,as in the French Courts, cannot define what the Internet is and what it will be. It will go with whatever works for all of us.
    I hope that Google is not going to take this lying down. And, no, I do not own Google shares.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.