At first blush, the recent ruling by a French court against Google seems just another one of those dumb Ludditish decisions that crop up in various corners of the world. But it may prove to be more dangerous than that.
The court ruled in favor of a French travel outfit that claimed a trademark on the words "Bourse des Vols," which Reuters translated as "Market for Flights." Google was fined for displaying ads for other airline ticketing resources for the "Bourse des Vols" search term. Only ads approved by the trademark holder can be displayed in such a case, the court seemed to saying.
Since the lawsuit was about sponsored links and not the generic Google search results, there is an argument that can be made for this decision. After all, if you enter "American Airlines" as your search term, and in return Google displays an ad for United Airlines instead, wouldn’t American Airlines have a right to be upset? Is it fair for a trademark holder could have its good name hijacked just because they don’t happen to be a paid advertiser on the search engine site?
It’s not impossible to imagine our own courts, with their current focus on protecting intellectual property at almost any cost, being swayed by a similar argument. Out of curiosity, I did a real Google search for "American Airlines," which returned sponsored links for American itself plus a host of fare-searching options (including some claiming to offer tips and tricks for getting special deals with the airline). And searching for "Southwest Airlines" yields two sponsored links, both for travel sites that, as near as I can tell, do not offer ticketing for Southwest. Maybe it’s a good thing Southwest doesn’t fly in France.
Of course, with cybersquatters registering random combinations of words as domain names, it’s easy to see how dangerous it is to let anyone with some sort of intellectual property stake get sole title to a search term. Those searching for "Bourse des Vols" were probably not looking for the specific company that happened to have the term trademarked. And, for that matter, some Google searches for "American Airlines" or "Southwest Airlines" might actually be prompted by a desire to find all American airlines or all airlines serving the Southwest. It’s just wrong to deprive the searcher of what might be the very thing they’re looking for, even if it is a sponsored link instead of a generic result.
What scares me the most about the French court’s decision though is the power it could give to intellectual property holder’s to squelch open discourse about their brand. If tomorrow I decide to branch out and start taking gripes about Air France, for example, it looks like I would need Air France’s permission to advertise my site on Google. If American Airlines doesn’t like a site providing insider secrets about its ticket pricing, should they be able to keep the site from using their brand name in advertising?
Advertising is a form of free speech, after all, and Internet advertising is by its nature an international medium. Let’s hope one dumb attempt to put constraints on the way the Internet works doesn’t wind up causing grief for us all.
1:59:26 PM 
|
