Olive Law’s Post

Mere use of Adwords will not amount to trademark infringement, confirms the SC. Looking beyond the SC's 3-line order in the Google Adwords trademark dispute, Aarav writes on the arguments that transpired before the Court in this tidbit. Read on below to know more. https://lnkd.in/gbPDXS7e

An interesting set of arguments in the Supreme Court. Check out the post and thoughts are always welcome!

Case Study- Google vs. MakeMyTrip: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7965 Brief facts: Google and MakeMyTrip clashed over trademark infringement issues. MakeMyTrip, a prominent player in the online travel industry, accused Google of unlawfully allowing competitors to bid on its trademarked keywords, thereby diverting traffic and diluting its brand identity. The case delved into the complexities of online advertising, trademark protection, and the responsibilities of tech giants in safeguarding intellectual property rights. Relief sought for : Suit came to be filed seeking permanent injunction against Booking.com from bidding for, adopting or using MakeMyTrip’s registered word marks through the Google Ads Program or use the same in any manner. Conclusion : It was determined that in seven out of ten instances when a user searches for “MakeMyTrip,” Booking.com's sponsored link appears second to MIPL’s link, indicating Booking.com also bids for MIPL’s trademarks as keywords. However, it's important to note that when a user searches for MIPL’s trademarks, Google’s search engine prioritizes MIPL’s web address in organic search results. Therefore, the court concluded that there's no likelihood of internet users being misled into believing that the services offered by Booking.com are those of MIPL. As a result, MIPL cannot claim any such rights under the Trade Marks Act. #ipr #trademarkinfringement #DigitalLaw #Lawswithrachna Rachna Shroff

🔍✨ Decoding the MakeMyTrip vs Google Legal Battle: Key Points Explained 1️⃣ Background: MakeMyTrip (MMT) filed an SLP against Google regarding the alleged misuse of MMT’s trademarks as “keywords” in Google Ads by Bookingdotcom before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (SC). In Dec 2023, The Delhi High Court held that registering trademarks as keywords is not an infringement if there's no confusion or unfair advantage and also lifted an interim order restraining the use of the word ‘MakeMyTrip’. 2️⃣ Deception and Trademark Infringement: MMT argued that using trademarks as keywords is unfair. 3️⃣ Consumer Choice and Lack of Confusion: Google countered, saying keywords provide choices and don't confuse consumers. 4️⃣ Rights Under Trademarks Act: It observed that Bookingdotcom's use of MakeMyTrip's trademark on Google doesn't prove infringement. The SC ruled that MakeMyTrip's claim against Bookingdotcom's sponsored links isn't covered by the Trademarks Act. 5️⃣ User Motivations: Why would users visit Bookingdotcom for MakeMyTrip? The court examined this, noting the difference between owning a trademark and appearing in search results. 6️⃣ Dismissal: Ultimately, the SC dismissed MMT's petition against Google for alleged trademark misuse in Google Ads. #LegalInsights #TrademarkLaw #supremecourtofindia #makemytrip #googleads #adwords #trademarkinfringement #bookingcom #google #iplawyers #iplaw

🛑Supreme Court Rejects MakeMyTrip's Trademark Claim Against Google. 📝Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed MakeMyTrip's claim of trademark infringement against Google, citing its use of the Google Ads program by rival Booking.com. MakeMyTrip alleged that Booking.com utilized its trademarks as keywords in Google Ads, leading to confusion among users. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, ruled that Booking.com's actions did not infringe on MakeMyTrip's trademark and did not create confusion among users. ⚖️Legal Proceedings: - MakeMyTrip filed an injunction against Google and Booking.com in the Delhi High Court, seeking to prevent them from using its registered trademarks as keywords in the Google Ads Program. - The Delhi High Court's division bench lifted MakeMyTrip's injunction, allowing Google and Booking.com to continue using the trademarks as keywords. - MakeMyTrip alleged that Booking.com bid on the keyword 'MakeMyTrip' in the Google Ads Program, diverting traffic and business from MakeMyTrip to Booking.com. - Initially, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court granted MakeMyTrip interim relief, but this decision was overturned by a two-judge bench in December of the previous year. 🔍Supreme Court's Decision: - The Supreme Court, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, rejected MakeMyTrip's appeal, stating that Booking.com's use of the trademark did not cause confusion among users. - The bench emphasized that users searching for MakeMyTrip would not be misled into accessing Booking.com's services. - MakeMyTrip's legal representatives sought clarification on the impact of the Supreme Court's decision on the motion hearing before a single judge, which the bench promised to address. 💼Business Implications: - The dismissal of MakeMyTrip's claim by the Supreme Court concludes a five-year legal battle between the travel tech major and Booking.com. - The ruling clarifies the use of trademarks in the digital advertising space and may set a precedent for similar disputes in the future. #MakeMyTrip #Google #Booking.com #TrademarkInfringement #SupremeCourtDecision #LegalProceedings #DigitalAdvertising #StartUpNews #BusinessNews #MicroShots #NewsUpdates

Last month, the High Court of England and Wales ruled in favor of Google in a trademark dispute with Shorts LLC, a company known for short film distribution. Shorts LLC claimed that Google's "YouTube Shorts" infringed on its trademarks, causing consumer confusion and damaging its brand. The court found that "YouTube Shorts" was descriptive of short-form content and did not infringe on Shorts LLC's trademarks. Furthermore, it declared Shorts LLC's trademarks invalid for being descriptive, emphasizing that descriptive terms cannot be exclusively owned. The court concluded there was no significant risk of consumer confusion between Shorts LLC's trademarks and "YouTube Shorts." The visual and contextual differences were sufficient to prevent any potential misunderstanding. Additionally, the court partially upheld Google's counterclaims by invalidating one of Shorts LLC's trademarks, noting that it lacked the distinctiveness required for trademark protection. This case serves as a crucial reminder to the international standards - adopted by the Egyptian IPR law - that the trademark should be distinctive and not merely descriptive. #IP #Trademarks

The Supreme Court has rejected MakeMyTrip's (MMT) challenge against the Delhi High Court's decision allowing Booking.com to use 'Make My Trip' as a Google Adword. The Delhi High Court had ruled that this didn't cause confusion or give unfair advantage to Booking.com. In a brief order, the Supreme Court highlighted that MMT's claim was essentially about not wanting Booking.com's ads to appear as sponsored links on Google searches for 'Make My Trip,' which they found wasn't covered by trademark laws. During the hearing, the bench of Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Pardiwala questioned whether using a keyword constitutes passing off or infringement. They observed that both 'MakeMyTrip' and 'Booking.com' were visible on the screen, reducing the chance of confusion. Google's counsel argued that keywords offer consumer choice and don't cause confusion. The Court examined Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, which covers infringement due to similarity, but concluded that there was no deception. Justice Chandrachud also questioned why someone would log into Booking.com if they intended to use MakeMyTrip, emphasizing the importance of understanding user intent and interaction with online platforms. In essence, the case revolved around the competition for visibility on search result screens through Google Ads' bidding system. The Court's decision underscores the balance between competition, brand recognition, and consumer rights in online business transactions.

1. 🖥️ Clarification on Trademark Use in Google Ads: No Infringement Without Confusion 🖥️ In a notable judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that using trademarks as keywords in Google Ads does not automatically constitute infringement or passing off. Here’s a breakdown: Swipe>>> 👉 Case Details: MakeMyTrip claimed Booking.com was infringing by using its trademarks in Google Ads, potentially misleading users. 👉 Court’s Take: Simply using trademarks as keywords is not ""applying the registered trademark"" for business labeling or advertising without proof of confusion or deceit. 👉 Outcome: Appeals allowed—Booking.com’s use of MakeMyTrip’s trademark in Google Ads was upheld as non-infringing, based on user recognition of its independent brand identity. #boudhikip #Copyright #IPR #trademarkprotection #BusinessInsights #IPprotection #trademarkcontroversy #DelhiHighCourt Karan Sharma Vivek Dahiya Ishan Tiwari Kritika Upmanyu Shubham Singh Thakur Amit Singh

News Delhi High Court injuncts man from using 'Goocle' mark after Google alleges trademark infringement Sofi Ahsan Bar and Bench Published:16th Mar, 2024 at 6:52 PM DELHI HIGH COURT Justice Sanjeev Narula Google vs. Goocle [Google Llc vs Mr. P. Rajesh Ram & Ors]. The Delhi High Court recently restrained a man in Tamil Nadu from using marks and trade names similar to ‘Google’ and ‘GPay’ in a case alleging that he had registered different entities under ‘Goocle’ name and also sought registration of trademarks akin to the marks of Google products [Google Llc vs Mr. P. Rajesh Ram & Ors]. The order was passed by Justice Sanjeev Narula in a commercial suit filed by Google LLC against P Rajesh Ram (defendant), who is alleged to be a partner in Goocle Housing LLP, Goocle Tamil News LLP, GIPAY Online Service LLP and Goocle Trade Payment LLP. The Court found the Ram’s trademarks “Gooogle”, “Goocle”, “Geogle” and “Gipay” “structurally and phonetically similar" to 'Google' and 'GPay' trademarks with difference of only one alphabet. "Prima facie, the impugned marks appear to be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff (Google)’s marks. The Defendants are utilising the impugned marks and domain names for online news, advertising, TV, banking and payment services, which also correspond to the Plaintiff’s scope of business operations, and is likely to cause confusion among the consumers,” Justice Narula said. Justice Sanjeev NarulaJustice Sanjeev Narula The order was passed in the suit filed by Google which said that it had come across the alleged infringement by defendant during a routine search. According to the suit, the defendant had filed several applications for registration of the marks in question before the trademark registry. The applications are currently under objection. Google through its legal representatives had then issued a cease-and- desist notice to Ram in response to which he assured to take down the content bearing ‘Google’ trademark. However, he allegedly refused to cease the use of the “Goocle” mark. Google later found other infringements including several domain names using ‘Goocle’ and approached the Court for relief. Goocle Marks under challenge before High CourtGoocle Marks under challenge before High Court Finding a prima face case in favour of Google, the Court agreed that in case of a typographical error in entering the URL or a domain name, a potential user could be misled to the websites of the defendant. It further opined that such use of the marks also appears to be detrimental to the distinctive character of well-known trademark Google and thus prima facie constitutes infringement of the search engine’s registered trademarks. “In view of the above, the Court finds that the Plaintiff (Google) has made out a prima facie case in their favour and they will suffer an irreparable loss if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted to them. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the ....Contd.

Recently, The Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF) has lodged a complaint with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against Google accusing the same to be of employing unfair practices in online advertising. Our Partner, Shimpy Arman Sharma shares her comments with The Economic Times in an article titled, "Usage of registered trademarks as keywords amounts to trademark infringement, says Legal Experts.” Read more at : https://lnkd.in/giyPJyyW #knowledgesharing #opinion #disputeresolution #ipr #trademark #cci #lawfirm