Well here's some good news. For many, many years there have been lawsuits around the globe accusing Google of violating trademarks of companies by selling ads based on the trademarked keywords of others. Thankfully, most courts around the world recognized that trademark law is not about giving total control over the words to one party, but about protecting consumers from confusion -- and thus ruled that it was perfectly legal to have ads on trademarked keywords (so long as those ads were not presented in a confusing manner). The one exception was France, which bizarrely ruled against Google. The case was appealed up to the European Court of Justice, who earlier this year said that selling ads on trademarked keywords is not infringement. With that ruling in hand, the French Supreme Court has now ruled in favor of Google and said that Louis Vuitton and others, who were complaining, have no infringement to complain about. This is a good ruling, though not a huge surprise after the EU ruling earlier.

Yesterday, I saw that Marty Schwimmer had posted a link to a Hyundai commercial asking if anyone saw the "lawsuit" in the commercial: It took me a second viewing before I spotted it. The commercial itself plays on the idea of "what if everyone could experience luxury items" showing various examples of "luxury" items being used in more everyday settings: yachts in driveways, cops eating caviar and... some guys shooting hoops with a "luxury" basketball using the typical Louis Vuitton markings that you see on LV purses/handbags/etc.

Louis Vuitton is notoriously (and ridiculously) aggressive when it comes to trademark infringement. A couple years back we wrote about LVMH (parent company of Louis Vuitton) suing a Darfur fundraiser for creating a t-shirt of a Darfur victim "pimped out" to look like Paris Hilton, including a designer handbag with symbols made to look like the LV symbols.

So, yes, that's exactly what this lawsuit is about. DSchneider points us to the Consumerist's article laying out the details and I've embedded the lawsuit filing below: Frankly, this lawsuit is ridiculous. LVMH is claiming that people might be confused? In what world? Seriously. In what world is anyone going to view the Hyundai commercial and think that it implies any kind of LVMH endorsement of Hyundai. It's a joke -- and any moron in a hurry knows that the LV basketball isn't a sign that LVMH is working with or endorsing Hyundai.

For years, various luxury brands have been furious that others can buy text keyword advertising based on their trademarked terms, leading to a series of lawsuits. In most place, the courts have realized that just buying a trademarked term as a keyword alone is not infringing on someone's trademark. France, however, is the one exception, having ruled against Google. Now, it's also ruled against eBay for supposedly having ads that pointed to eBay whenever anyone searched on a typo/misspelling of any of LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy). Apparently, in France, you're not even allowed to misspell a trademarked brand name without official permission...

While more and more courts seem to be understanding that eBay shouldn't be responsible for what users are selling on its site, it appears that French courts are a bit confused. Last year, a French court fined eBay $63 million because counterfeit LVMH products were being sold on the site. Of course, eBay has no way of knowing what's legit and what's not, but the French court didn't seem to care. A similar case, also involving LVMH, but concerning Google ads, was also ruled in LVMH's favor, but it was appealed to the European Court of Justice, and a judge there has already indicated that it makes little sense to blame the company. But that isn't stopping the French courts. eBay has now been fined yet again, because of a French ban on selling even legally purchased brands of LVMH perfumes if you're not an authorized distributor. eBay is appealing the ruling, saying that banning the resale of legally purchased goods doesn't make sense and harms consumers. However, a much bigger question is why eBay should be liable at all. It's not eBay doing the selling, but users on the site.

It seems like it should be common sense that Google isn't violating any trademark laws because some of its customers buy ads using keywords from other's trademarks. Trademark is about consumer protection -- keeping people from getting confused and buying one product believing it's made by someone else. It's only a recent phenomenon that trademark holders have tried to stretch and extend trademark to mean they get to control all uses of it and shut down any use they don't like. But having ads for competing products show up when someone's looking for a brand seems like perfectly reasonable competition. Still, luxury brands, such as LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessey), Tiffany, L'Oreal and others keep bringing lawsuits. LVMH won a case against Google in France, but that case moved up to the European Court of Justice, and senior judge there has now stepped in and said that selling ads shouldn't be trademark infringement, though a full decision is still a few months (at least) away. There's also an odd caveat: "Google could be held liable if brand owners could show that Google's ads had damaged their trademarks." What, exactly, does that mean? I'm guessing it's something similar to the already troubling "dilution" standard used in the US, but it seems impossibly vague and open to interpretation (and countless lawsuits).