Google France SARL v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (2010)

“When a brand name becomes a keyword, the line between fair competition and infringement grows thin.”

Short Description :

This case was a major milestone in determining the liability of search engines for trademark use in online advertising. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) examined whether Google’s AdWords service infringed Louis Vuitton’s trademark rights by allowing advertisers to buy keywords identical to the brand name. The decision drew a clear distinction between the use of a mark by advertisers and use by intermediaries like Google.

Facts :

Louis Vuitton, a luxury fashion house, discovered that when users searched “Louis Vuitton” on Google, sponsored links appeared for third-party sellers offering counterfeit or competing products. Vuitton claimed that Google had infringed its trademarks by selling its name as an advertising keyword. Google countered that it was a neutral platform facilitating commercial communication and not itself a “user” of the trademark. The case reached the CJEU for interpretation of EU trademark law.

Findings / Reasoning :

The CJEU ruled that Google, as a search engine operator, did not itself “use” the trademarks in a commercial sense and thus was not liable for infringement. However, advertisers who purchased Vuitton’s name as a keyword could be liable if their ads created confusion about the origin of goods or falsely implied affiliation with Louis Vuitton. The court balanced trademark protection against the principles of online commerce and freedom of expression.

Suggestions / Observations :

The decision established a modern framework for online intermediary liability. It emphasized that digital platforms should maintain neutrality while providing adequate mechanisms to remove misleading advertisements. The case also urged trademark owners to monitor digital use of their marks actively.

Judgment & Date :

The CJEU delivered its decision on 23 March 2010, holding that Google was not directly liable but advertisers could be responsible for trademark infringement through confusing keyword use.