[LINK] Re: World's first, ACCC initiates Google legal proceedings
karl at karl.net.au
Mon Jul 23 09:30:00 EST 2007
Hi Janet, Linkers,
IANAL, but maybe the lawyers on the list might be willing to put
forward a hypothetical opinion.
My guess is that it would depend on the extent of the complicity of
the publication in knowingly publishing the misleading advert, and
how easily identifiable the advertiser is.
My understanding is that in most cases the advertiser would be
pursued, *BUT* if the publication was notified by a trademark holder
of the infringement, and continued to print the adverts in subsequent
editions, then the publisher would become liable, at least in part.
That is, the notification to the publisher, and ignorance by that
publisher of that same notice would then make the publisher negligent
or reckless or something.
I am starting to get out of my depth - is there someone else who can
At 10:13 AM +0930 21/7/07, Janet Hawtin wrote:
>On 7/20/07, Karl Schaffarczyk <karl at karl.net.au> wrote:
>>I think the main thrust of the case may have been missed in your posting.
>>The facts of the case as I understand them are:
>>A company with trade mark Stickybeek(tm) was running a cars for sale
>>The trading post paid google for some ads, which is OK.
>>The trading post opted to have their ad displayed when 'Stickybeek'
>>was one of the search terms, which I understand is *still* OK.
>>However, the trading post's ad looked something like this (my
>>mock-up, not an actual ad):
>>Look for your car online
>>Choose from 1000s of listings.
>Thanks for the explanation. In a non web context, Say in the trading
>post... If I post an add for recycled socks using the anme of a
>company down the road which makes recycled socks who would be
>actionable, the trading post or the advertising person?
More information about the Link