> By suing Google, Vuitton is basically arguing that Web search is an advertising and marketing service for companies, instead of a research service for Web users. Nope - it's saying that context-specific advertising (not search results) is an advertising and marketing service for companies, and one which can be abused to an extent that is illegal in France. Competitors buying another's trademark as a keyword are abusing that trademark and Google, as the publisher of the information, is as liable for that infringment as the advertiser under French law.

Yes, you're right Mike. I should have been more specific. However, we can still debate whether a company's use of their competitor's search terms should be illegal. After all, adWords are inextricably connected to search, and search users may not be always searching just for the brand name they put in the search bar. Comparison shopping, after all, is a great use of search. So if I search for Vuitton and, say, Coach, wouldn't I (as a consumer) want those competitor's sites to show up in AdWords?

I would challenge that "adWords are inextricably connected to search". Google works just fine as a search engine without AdWords. AdWords are inextricably connected to search as a revenue stream for Google, but there is a strong disconnect with the way search (or good search) works. Google doesn't deliver the ads that it thinks are most appropriate to the search; it delivers those where an advertisier has paid for keywords. In this instance, the court has ruled that, by using Vuitton's trademarks without its permission to *advertise products* for which those trademarks have protection, Google is in breach of France's Intellectual Property Code. It's possible to argue for and against the whole cencept of intellectual property protection (and, at a more refined level, about the way in which it is currently implemented), but the fact remains that it does exist, and it seems Google's in the wrong under French law. If Google wishes to operate in France (or anywhere...) it must follow local laws. It has a choice - it can block all French-based IP addresses from using any Google site, together with those from other countries that take the French view of publisher liability... There are going to be more and more cases like this. (It's worth pointing out that US Intellectual Property law is also pretty strict, of course - the difference is that in the US the advertisers would carry the full liability and Google would be protected; France's media laws are substantially different, making Google, as the "publisher", 100% liable.)

Is LV against Google putting up its own ads when people search for competitors brands? Doesn't LV want potential customers to see its advertisements when they are looking at Gucci or Chanel? It can go both ways.

> Doesn't LV want potential customers to see its advertisements when they are looking at Gucci or Chanel? It can go both ways. Well, not really. This isn't about what Vuitton or Chanel or Gucci wants; it's about what the law says. And the law protects trademarks in this manner.

Google's continuing difficulties in Brazil highlight the difficulties facing the search and advertising giant as its applications are adopted in countries abroad, which enforce differing sets of legal standards.

Google's continuing difficulties in Brazil highlight the difficulties facing the search and advertising giant as its applications are adopted in countries abroad, which enforce differing sets of legal standards.

Google's continuing difficulties in Brazil highlight the difficulties facing the search and advertising giant as its applications are adopted in countries abroad, which enforce differing sets of legal standards.

Google's continuing difficulties in Brazil highlight the difficulties facing the search and advertising giant as its applications are adopted in countries abroad, which enforce differing sets of legal standards.