Bar&Bench News Network
Google India is being sued by the Indian portal company Consim Info. Consim, which runs leading matrimonial site, Bharat Matrimony along with portals in other verticals like job sites, loans, automobiles and real estate, claims that Google's Adwords advertisements are using its trademarks to refer business to its competitors.
Consim Info has filed a suit in the Madras High Court asking for a permanent injunction restraining Google from infringements on its trademarks, and also from enabling others to infringe upon Consim's trademarks, and has prayed for Rs. 10.05 lakhs as damages. Consim has also impleaded People Interactive Pvt Ltd, Jeevansathi Internet Services Pvt Ltd and Times Business Solutions Ltd, as parties to the suit. Justice Rajasuria of the Madras High Court has granted a temporary injunction preventing Google from selling space to Consim's competitors based on Bharat matrimony's trademarks,and has also asked Google India not to include the trademark names of Bharatmatrimony in their Adwords or Keyword suggestion tool.
Consim's contention is that Google Adwords enables its advertisers to enter trademarked names as keywords, which leads to infringement. When a user types in the trademarked words Bharat Matrimony, for example, Google's sponsored Adwords section displays links to competing portals such as JeevanSathi and Shaadi. Although Consim may also have benefited from this strategy, it has stated that as the market leader, it will lobby for a change in Google's keyword policy across the board.
Thirumalesh Gangappa, Country Counsel for Google India, was unavailable for comment. Consim was tight-lipped about the lawyers representing them, and asked us to await the official copy from the High Court.
Although this is the first trademark infringement case Google is fighting in India, there have been several similar lawsuits filed in the United States and in Europe. Google is currently facing a class action suit in Texas filed by software services company Firepond, while another class action suit, representing all the trademark owners in America, has been filed by John Beck. Connecticut law firm Stratton Faxon has also filed a suit against Google for allowing competing law firms to use its name as a keyword.
Interestingly, Google's trademark policy in Europe is stricter, with Google affirming its intention of upholding complaints against trademark infringements in European countries. Google has been fighting a court battle with Louis Vuitton since 2006, with the matter currently pending before the European Court of Justice. Google has also faced, and lost, a lawsuit in France filed by Le Meridien Resorts.
|
- 1. "when will the privacy laws kick in to prevet cookie colection?". Guest, London
Related Stories
- Google one-up in Adwords battle
- Thirumalesh Gangappa, General Counsel, Google India
- Blogger defames, Google says, 'I'm not responsible'
- Google's Library Project runs into more trouble; Indian Publishers' turn now
- Google e Un Problema Italiano
- IP Law suit of the year - Oracle Vs. Google: Mofo and Boies, Schiller take lead roles
- Trademark Registration changes in India: Conversation with Biju Nambiar of Majmudar & Co
Other News
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
- Siddharth Wahi joins JSA as Of Counsel; Former Baker Mckenzie SA to focus on Energy Sector
- Re-Upped Round up May 16
- Bombay HC taking proactive steps to fight pendency; Special committee to examine pending civil suits for speedy disposal
- CLAT Booze Bills: NUJS defies providing information under RTI Act
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (2)










