The
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold an important ruling allowing anyone to purchase Google's "sponsored links" tied to trademarks, arguing that the practice is legal under trademark law and provides a vital means for online speakers to connect with audiences on the Internet.
Google's "sponsored links" feature allows customers to buy advertisements attached to certain search terms. When a Google user types those terms into the search engine, the sponsored links appear along with the search results. However, a company named Rescuecom filed a lawsuit against Google over the program, claiming that selling sponsored links for the term "Rescuecom" infringed its trademark.
In an amicus brief filed with the appeals court today, EFF argues that the sponsored links are not an infringing use, and in fact promote a vibrant public sphere by helping online speakers reach a broader audience. An example cited in the brief is that of "The Coalition of Immokalee Farmworkers," a group critical of McDonald's business practices. The coalition bought sponsored links attached to searches for "McDonald's" in order to stimulate debate and mobilize support.
"The Internet has brought together speakers of many kinds -- some competing with trademark owners, others criticizing them, still others simply referring to them while discussing other subjects or products," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "Services like Google's 'sponsored links' help people with something to say reach those who might be interested in hearing it."
Rescuecom has asked the court to hold that trademark law regulates virtually any use of search keywords that are also trademarks. This would give trademark holders a legal sword to wield against critics and competitors, as well as the intermediaries upon which those critics and competitors rely to spread their message. But courts have historically taken care to ensure that trademark restrictions do not allow markholders to interfere with Constitutionally-protected free speech.
"On the Internet, trademarks aren't just identifiers. They are essential navigation tools and vehicles of expression," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "Quashing this speech goes against both the law and the public interest."
A judge dismissed Rescuecom's case against Google last year, but the company is appealing the decision.
For the full brief filed in
Rescuecom v. Google:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/rescuecom_v_google/EFF_amicus.pdf
KW
Comments
I live and work in the UK and, although not a lawyer, am responsible for the admin and upkeep of my Group's trade marks. These marks are used for products which we've developed and marketed ourselves. We had to pay to get those marks and we have to pay renewal fees to keep them. Trade mark law in most countries (including the US)says that for an unrelated third party to use someone else's trade marks to trick people into believing they are dealing with the registered owner is "passing off", which is a theft crime that carries heavy penalties. It doesn't matter whether or not the third party claims to be stealing someone else's trade mark for a "good" purpose. If that were allowed, then anyone could walk into a store, steal some of its goods to give to the poor and claim they were immune from prosecution because the means justified the ends. Theft is theft, whether it takes place in real time or cyberspace. Freedom of speech is all very well but it embraces the bad as well as the good. How would those US judges view the matter if the freedom they are so keen to uphold meant that every time someone did a search on "Coca Cola", say, they were given an advert for a bombmaking kit or a well reasoned argument about how we should all support international terrorism?
Latest Government Technology News