Photon Legal’s Post

🛑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

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

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

Getting on board with our Case Analysis Series, let’s surf to the GOOGLE LLC VS MAKEMYTRIP PRIVATE LIMITED ,2022. MakeMyTrip, a leading online travel company in India, alleged that Google allowed its competitors to use MakeMyTrip’s registered trademarks as keywords in Google’s advertising service, Google Ads. This practice led to competitors’ ads appearing prominently in search results when users searched for MakeMyTrip’s trademarks, potentially diverting customers. MakeMyTrip contended that this practice was misleading and caused confusion among consumers, thus constituting trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court’s division bench ultimately ruled in favour of Google. The court held that using a trademark as a keyword in online ads did not automatically constitute trademark infringement unless it created a likelihood of confusion or misled consumers. The court referenced its earlier judgment in Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P.) Ltd., where it was determined that using trademarks as keywords did not amount to using them as trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court’s division bench ultimately ruled in favour of Google. The court held that using a trademark as a keyword in online ads did not automatically constitute trademark infringement unless it created a likelihood of confusion or misled consumers. The court referenced its earlier judgment in Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P.) Ltd., where it was determined that using trademarks as keywords did not amount to using them as trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Below is the link to the original judgement : https://lnkd.in/eN7kRrpq Below is the link to the case analysis : https://lnkd.in/evcRzxQ2

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Google in a trademark case brought by MakeMyTrip (MMT), concerning the use of MMT's trademarks as "keywords" in Google Ads to display links to its competitor, Booking.com. Last year, the Delhi High Court had determined that the use of trademarks in Google Ads did not constitute infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as long as it didn't cause confusion or mislead users about sponsored links. MakeMyTrip contested this ruling, alleging that Booking.com was benefiting unfairly from its brand reputation. In the recent dismissal of MMT's appeal, the bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, emphasized that customers looking to book through MakeMyTrip wouldn't confuse it with Booking.com. The court noted that the Delhi High Court's decision was interim, pending the conclusion of the trial in the IP infringement case. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing MMT, argued that Booking.com was leveraging MMT's reputation unfairly. However, the court highlighted the absence of confusion between the two brands and questioned the passing off allegations. The division bench of the Delhi High Court, in its December 14 verdict, overturned the earlier order that restrained Booking.com from bidding on MMT's trademark in Google AdWords. Considering various provisions of the Trade Marks Act, the court concluded that the likelihood of confusion between MMT and Booking.com was minimal. Ultimately, the court's focus was not on determining right or wrong but on whether MMT's trademark rights were violated. This decision underscores the complex interplay between trademark law and online advertising practices. #TrademarkLaw #LegalUpdate #MakeMyTripvsGoogle

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

Tech giant Google recently failed to prevent the registration of the mark grMail by Green Radar after IPOS rejected its opposition and also orders Google to pay US$12,000 to Green Radar. #win This typically falls under the doctrine of dilution of trademarks: The doctrine of dilution of trademarks refers to a principle in trademark law that protects a trademark from any form of disintegration. As per the doctrine, in order to establish the dilution of a trademark, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that (1) the infringer has used the junior mark which is significantly similar to the well-known mark in order to insinuate or establish a relationship between the well-known brand and the infringer's brand and (2) has caused economic harm to the well-known mark's value by diminishing its value. In India, Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 deals with trademark dilution. However, the term 'dilution' has not been defined under the Act. Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act enumerates the conditions that classify as dilution: (4) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which— (a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and (b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and (c) the registered trade mark has a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark. However, there exist certain conditions under which the infringing mark shall not be considered dilution and also leads to being an act of Trademark Bullying, where in many cases, dominant players in the relevant market who hold IPR such as companies were alleged for abusing their position in the relevant market. Trademark Bullying is an obstacle for smaller entities to enter the market. In India, Section 142 of Trademarks Act 1999 provides provision for law relating to trademark bullying stating that aggrieved party may file a suit for unjustified threats against any individual who threatens to initiate legal action for trademark infringement. The aggrieved person can also obtain monetary compensation for the same. Similar provision can also be found for other Intellectual Property Rights. There is very thin line between Trademark Bullying and Dilution of Trademarks and all these judgment helps with understanding this concept of the law better. #iplaw #legalinsights #legalnews #trademarks #unfairadvantage #trademarkinfringement #google #trademarkbullying #trademarkantidilution #trademarklaw #legaladvice

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

There are a few big-ticket compliance SNAFUs in this ad (the exclusion of the comparison being the most obvious), but usage of the Coat of Arms in a black and white ad designed to emulate a Government document is the focus of this rant. The use of the mark is regulated under federal law, and its use in any advertising is prohibited unless specific permission is granted (and it never is, particular when used in consumer-facing finance advertising, and certainly not on ad that is natively non-compliant or deceptive). Let's look at some of the laws relating to usage of the Coat of Arms. 1. Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Section 73: Prohibits the unauthorized use of the Australian Coat of Arms in a way that suggests a connection to the Australian Government. 2. Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). Section 39: States that the Australian Coat of Arms is a protected symbol and cannot be used in trade or commerce without authorisation. Use in advertising is considered a form of trade or commerce. 3. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2015 (Cth). This amendment strengthens protections for official government symbols, including the Australian Coat of Arms. 4. Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The Australian Coat of Arms is not covered by copyright but is protected under laws governing national symbols. Misuse could still lead to enforcement under this act in conjunction with other legislation. 5. Australian Government Branding Guidelines. These guidelines clarify appropriate uses of the Australian Coat of Arms and explicitly prohibit its use for commercial purposes, including advertising. 6. Consumer Law. Implying a government endorsement or affiliation is misleading and a breach of Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Section 18). 7. Other consumer/financial legislation deals with trickery, deception, false representation, false endorsements or associations, and consumer perception. Be careful.

Deeper dive into Ad Agency GenAI usage from the recent Forrester report. No doubt concerns regarding IP ownership, attribution, and copyright infringement are weighing heavily... https://lnkd.in/eFAzTnEe #GenAI #marketing #AdAgency