Ordinary and reasonable users of the Google search engine would have understood that the representations conveyed by the sponsored links were those of the advertisers, and would not have concluded that Google adopted or endorsed the representations. Accordingly, Google did not engage in conduct that was misleading or deceptive.

Safe harbors from secondary liability are essential for Internet platforms and businesses, and it is encouraging when other countries affirm these principles.

Irrespective of the specific settlement terms, ending this case is a strategic win for Google because it takes out the last “major” US trademark owner challenger to AdWords.  Combined with the recent dismissal of the Jurin lawsuit, Google is now down to two pending US trademark lawsuits over AdWords: CYBERsitter and Home Decor Center.  Despite CYBERsitter’s recent intermediate “win,” I don’t think either of the two remaining lawsuits are dangerous to Google.  As a result, Google is tantalizingly close to successfully running the table on all of the US trademark challenges to its AdWords practices.  When this happens, Google will have legitimized the billions of dollars of revenues it makes by selling trademarked keywords in AdWords.

I am struggling to make sense of myTriggers' litigation choices. Assuming myTriggers even has the money, writing a $335k check to Google (and I bet Google would have taken less!) is almost assuredly cheaper than paying three law firms to mount an antitrust assault on a $20B/year behemoth. Assuming that myTriggers wants to maximize profits, then either (1) myTriggers thinks its odds are good enough that it will win AND make enough money to pay the 7 lawyers on the counterclaim's signature page plus their teams, or (2) the law firms struck an unbelievably sweet deal on fees.

Whatever the case, I suspect the antitrust claims caught Google flat-footed. A simple and low-stakes collections matter has blown up into a potentially significant lawsuit in an undesirable forum. Google chose Ohio state court for the collections matter despite its AdWords contract, so now it will have a tough time extricating itself from that court. But I suspect it would rather have an antitrust case in federal court, not state court--often (but not always) federal judges are more sophisticated than state judges and less susceptible to hometown bias. And I'm sure Google would rather fight antitrust claims on one of the coasts than in the Rust Belt, especially if myTriggers argues that Google's evilness cost Ohioans jobs. Google probably didn't mean to offer battle in this venue, but someone did a really good job of seizing the opportunity and forcing Google to fight the battle in a suboptimal setting.

"I think that there will be trademark owners that do not like this policy," said Terri Chen, senior trademark counsel at Google. "But trademark law allows for that. It is a pretty well-established principle in the offline world and in the online world."

Perhaps Google did suggest a competitor's mark -- but trade-mark infringement only occurs when there is "use" in conjunction with similar products or services. How is Google supposed to know whether my use will infringe, or be perfectly lawful? A ruling that Google can never suggest keywords that happen to be trade-marked does not make sense to me.

For example, the word "Canton" has been trade-marked for various things by various companies in the U.S. and Canada, including speakers, liqueur, and soup. So if I wanted "David Canton" as a keyword, why would it be a problem for Google to suggest "Canton" as a possible keyword? Surely it's my responsibility to use that keyword for my own purposes to promote my legal services -- and not use it to sell my own line of speakers, liqueur or soup.

Google should have a role to play if I do that -- but the role should be to forward complaints or put the complainant in touch with me -- not to be liable itself for my infringement.

It is not by reason of absence of a use of a mark in commerce that benign product placement escapes liability; it escapes liability because it is a benign practice which does not cause a likelihood of consumer confusion. In contrast, if a retail seller were to be paid by an off-brand purveyor to arrange product display and delivery in such a way that customers seeking to purchase a famous brand would receive the off-brand, believing they had gotten the brand they were seeking, we see no reason to believe the practice would escape liability merely because it could claim the mantle of "product placement."