European Adviser Backs Google on Trademarks

European Adviser Backs Google on Trademarks

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/23google.html?ref=business

Much like most individuals in my income bracket (or lately, lack-thereof), product trademarks are commonplace, even if the product is not altogether authentic. I must admit I purchased a knock-off designer bag at a flea market. Held side-by-side next to the real thing (which my neighbor has), most, if not all, would be hard-pressed to be able to identify the authentic bag. My neighbor claims that after spending over $1600 for the real thing that it ultimately guaranteed for life that if it tears or the stitching comes out, it will be repaired or replaced at no cost. My contention is that if something happened to my bag, I would throw it away and replace it for another $25.

In today’s society there are still terms used which are in fact trademarked but not necessarily refer to the exact product. My mother still refers to a tissue as a Kleenex, even though I use Puffs. More often than not cola is not called such, but Coke or Pepsi.
When searching for criteria on-line, the same applies. Products are referred to by commonplace names to identify branding. As Google pointed out in the link, paid advertisements appear when key words/names are utilized. This too aids in the consumer locating the product for which they are searching.

This is one of the rare instances that I agree with the court’s ruling that there is no trademark infringement by Google for allowing key search words/terms (even proper product brands) to be utilized in product identification. It certainly makes searching the internet more user-friendly.