RB
Gepubliceerd op woensdag 9 maart 2011
RB 703
      
De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

Adwords: Keyword advertising

De uitnodiging voor het evenement hieronder (lees verder) of in pdf in het Nederlands en in het Engels.

Use of ‘trademarks with a reputation’ as Adwords by competitors:
Permissible ‘comparative advertising’ or impermissible ‘coat-tail riding’ / ‘dilution’?
 
On Thursday March 24, 2011 The Trademark Law Institute (TLI) is going to discuss this question in Amsterdam together with Prof. Dr. Ansgar Ohly, LL.M. (University of Bayreuth).

Use of ‘trademarks with a reputation’ as Adwords by competitors:
Permissible ‘comparative advertising’ or impermissible ‘coat-tail riding’ / ‘dilution’?
 
On Thursday March 24, 2011 The Trademark Law Institute (TLI) is going to discuss this question in Amsterdam together with Prof. Dr. Ansgar Ohly, LL.M. (University of Bayreuth). (see attachment)
 
This question has not been answered by the EU Court in its 2010 Adword decisions.
 
Maybe the Advocate-General is going to shed some light on it in his or her opinion in the Interflora case (C-323/09), which is due on the morning of that same day, Thursday March 24, 2011.
 
Recently, the The Hague district Court[1] decided in summary proceedings in a (second) case concerning the trademark/Adword ‘Tempur’ (a well-known trademark for mattresses) that the use of a trademark as Adword  is necessary for effective comparative advertising on the Internet.
 
[“Naar voorlopig oordeel is het gebruik van een merk als Adword noodzakelijk voor een doeltreffende vergelijkende reclame op internet. Vergelijkende reclame kan namelijk alleen doeltreffend zijn als de reclame het publiek bereikt dat primair geïnteresseerd is in de producten van een concurrent. Juist dat kan worden bewerkstelligd door een merk van een concurrent als Adword te gebruiken”.]
 
This decision has been criticised.  [see IEForum.nl > ‘Tempur’]
 
The questions we would like to discuss (among others) are:
 
  1. Is the The Hague district Court right in stating that the use of a trademark as Adword  is necessary for effective comparative advertising on the Internet?
 
  1. Does any direct or indirect reference to a competing product or service [or instance combined with a claim that one is cheap or cheaper] amount to permissible ‘comparative advertising’, for which the use of an Adword identical to a trademark (with a reputation) owned by a competitor is necessary and therefore permissible?
 
  1. Is Google right (or maybe acting unlawfully) in explicitly permitting in its ‘AdWords policy on trademarks in ads’ [any and all ?] “ads for competing products or services” “to display against a trademarked keyword, provided that the ad is not confusing [...]”.  (see attachment)
 
  1. Is the (unlimited) use of a ‘trademark with a reputation’ as an Adwords by competitors likely to lead to a situation in which “the trade mark has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered;” (see article 51.b CTMR).
 
Please come to Amsterdam on Thursday March 24, 2011 and / or share your thoughts and suggestions for additional questions with us in advance by e-mail.

[1] The Hague District Court 4 February 2011, KG ZA 10-1438, IEF  9383 (Tempur / Medicomfort), par. 4.6.
||
Kopieer citeerwijze