Keywords, case law and the Court of Justice: the need for legislative intervention in modernising European trade mark law

Abstract

Recent preliminary references to the CJEU on online keyword advertising and registered trade mark infringement have exposed the challenges facing EU registered trade mark law in its response to new technologies. These cases and the challenges they pose provide a timely prism through which to examine the European trade mark law-making process and the role of the CJEU within that process. This article will employ an analysis of the way in which the CJEU has developed certain key new aspects of the law on ‘infringing use’ to explore concerns over the CJEU's role and approach. It will be argued that, driven by policy considerations, the CJEU has acted creatively to develop the law of infringement in ways that cannot be sustained by the TMD and CTMR and which are likely to cause increasing uncertainties going forward. With the European Commission currently considering reform of Trade Marks Directive 2008/95/EC and Community Trade Mark Regulation 207/2009/EC, this paper will argue that there is a need for more comprehensive and forward-looking legislative intervention than has yet been proposed and that such intervention will be essential to restoring balance in the European trade mark law-making process.

Keywords:

• trade marks
• keyword advertising
• Court of Justice

Notes

The TMD was fully implemented by all Member States in 1996 and the CTM system also began operating that year. The original version of the TMD, Council Directive 89/104/EEC, has been replaced by codified Directive 2008/95/EC and the original version of the CTMR, Council Regulation 40/94/EEC, by codified Regulation 207/2009/EC, both without substantive amendment. The provisions of the TMD and CTMR are consistent for all relevant purposes; for brevity, this paper will refer to relevant provisions of the TMD. All references to ‘European trade mark law’, ‘trade mark law’ and ‘trade mark infringement’ are to the TMD/CTMR regime.

Commission Communication. 2012. A coherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market for e-commerce and online services. COM(2011) 942 final, Brussels, 11 January 2012, 8.

Reported, with Advocate Generals' Opinions where given, at: Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30 (‘Google France’); Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni (Case C-278/08) [2010] ETMR 33 (‘BergSpechte’); Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV (Case C-558/08) [2010] ETMR 52 (‘Portakabin’); L'Oréal SA and others v eBay International AG and others (Case C-324/09) [2011] ETMR 52 (‘eBay’); Interflora Inc. and another v Marks & Spencer plc and another (Case C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1 (‘Interflora’). Eis.de GmbH v BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (Case C-91/09) (‘Eis.de’) was decided by reasoned order dated 26 March 2010.

See generally: Bednarz, T., and Waelde, C. 2009. Search Engines, Keyword Advertising and Trade Marks: Fair Innovation or Free Riding? In Law and the Internet, eds. L. Edwards and C. Waelde. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing; Cornthwaite, J. 2010. To key or not to key? The judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Google France Adwords cases. European Intellectual Property Review 32, no. 7: 352–353.

Quoted from Bengoetxea, J., MacCormick, N. and Moral Soriano, L. 2001. Integration and Integrity in the Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice. In The European Court of Justice, eds. G. de Búrca and J.H.H. Weiler. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 43, reporting the views of Rasmussen and other writers on the CJEU generally. For similar criticism in the trade mark context, see: Trimmer, B. 2008. An increasingly uneasy relationship – the English courts and the European Court of Justice in trade mark disputes. European Intellectual Property Review 30, no. 3: 87–92.

Commission Communication. 2011. A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights. COM(2011) 287 final, Brussels, 24 May 2011, 8–9; Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System, presented by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich, 15 February 2011 (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/tm/index_en.htm, last accessed 29 October 2012).

Arsenal Football Club Plc v Reed (Case C-206/01) [2003] 3 WLR 450 (‘Arsenal’), para 40, defining use ‘in the course of trade’ as use which ‘takes place in the context of commercial activity with a view to economic advantage and not as a private matter’. There will be use ‘in relation to goods or services’ whether the sign is used to refer to the infringer's, the trade mark owner's or third party goods or services: UDV North America Inc. v Brandtraders NV (Case C-62/08) [2010] ETMR 25.

Article 5(3) TMD: ‘The following, inter alia, may be prohibited under paragraphs 1 and 2: (a) affixing the sign to the goods or the packaging thereof; (b) offering the goods, or putting them on the market or stocking them for these purposes under that sign, or offering or supplying services thereunder; (c) importing or exporting the goods under the sign; (d) using the sign on business papers and in advertising’.

Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras 32, 37 and 41. See also Bednarz, T., and Waelde, C. 2009. Search Engines, Keyword Advertising and Trade Marks: Fair Innovation or Free Riding? In Law and the Internet, eds. L. Edwards and C. Waelde, 292–293. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.

Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras 44 and 42. Google's suggestion of disputed keywords was mentioned in the CJEU's summaries of the cases referred, but not substantively discussed in relation to infringement.

Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras 55–57.

Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30 paras 58–59.

Advocate General, Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras AG39–AG40. He rejects the case against Google on other grounds: paras AG54–AG125.

For example: Casenote ‘TRADEMARK LAW – INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY – EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE HOLDS THAT SEARCH ENGINES DO NOT INFRINGE TRADEMARKS – Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 & C-238/08 Google France SARL v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, 2010 ECJ EUR-Lex LEXIS 119 (Mar. 23, 2010)’ Harvard Law Review 124, no. 2(2010-2011): 648–655 (although this is not without criticism of the Court's new test); Senftleben, M. 2011. Adapting EU Trademark Law to New Technologies - Back to Basics? In Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives, ed. C. Geiger. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (accessed at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1875629, 29 October 2012), 17–18.

For example: Advocate General, Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras AG70–AG74 and AG101–AG113; Dogan, S. 2010. Trademark remedies and online intermediaries. Lewis & Clark Law Review 14, no. 2: 468–471; Stalla-Bourdillon, S. 2011. Uniformity v. Diversity of Internet Intermediaries' Liability Regime: Where does the ECJ stand? Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 6, no. 1: 54.

The expression ‘intermediary’ is used in this paper in line with Articles 9(1)(a) and 11 Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, to denote an entity whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right.

Casenote ‘TRADEMARK LAW – INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY – EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE HOLDS THAT SEARCH ENGINES DO NOT INFRINGE TRADEMARKS – Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 & C-238/08 Google France SARL v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, 2010 ECJ EUR-Lex LEXIS 119 (Mar. 23, 2010)’ Harvard Law Review 124, no. 2(2010-2011): 653–654. See also UDV North America Inc. v Brandtraders NV (Case C-62/08) [2010] ETMR 25.

In support of this view, see: Casenote ‘TRADEMARK LAW – INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY – EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE HOLDS THAT SEARCH ENGINES DO NOT INFRINGE TRADEMARKS – Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 & C-238/08 Google France SARL v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, 2010 ECJ EUR-Lex LEXIS 119 (Mar. 23, 2010)’ Harvard Law Review 124, no. 2(2010-2011): 653; Cornthwaite, J. 2010. To key or not to key? The judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Google France Adwords cases. European Intellectual Property Review 32, no. 7: 356; Stalla-Bourdillon, S. 2011. Uniformity v. Diversity of Internet Intermediaries' Liability Regime: Where does the ECJ stand? Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 6, no. 1: 53-54. For a contrary view, see Morcom, C. 2012. Trade marks and the Internet: where are we now? European Intellectual Property Review 34, no. 1: 51. The issue does not appear to have re-opened by the national courts. The paragraph of the CJEU's order in Google France dealing with the provider's liability for trade mark infringement refers only to the storage of keywords and display of advertisements.

Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras 114–119. See Clark, B. 2010. ECJ decides in French Google Adword referrals: more seek than find? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 5, no. 7: 480, noting that this may make Google more than merely ‘neutral’ for these purposes.

L'Oréal SA and others v eBay International AG and others (Case C-324/09) [2011] ETMR 52, paras 98–105. There was also a second limb to this case involving the purchase of keywords by eBay, discussed in relation to advertisers in the main text above.

Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH (Case C-119/10) [2012] ETMR 16 (‘Red Bull’), paras 30 and 33.

Advocate General, Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, para AG150.

Interflora Inc. and another v Marks & Spencer plc and another (Case C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1, para 27. Interflora was referred before the judgment in Google France, but this and other questions were maintained as the High Court felt that the position post-Google France was still unclear: Interflora, Inc. and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another [2010] EWHC 925 (Ch).

Goldman, E. 2005. Deregulating relevancy in internet trademark law. Emory Law Journal 54, no. 1: 541; Ott, S. and Schubert, M. 2011. ‘It's the ad text, stupid’: cryptic answers won't establish legal certainty for online advertisers. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 6, no. 1: 30.

Advocate General, Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras AG55–AG56; Casenote ‘TRADEMARK LAW – INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY – EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE HOLDS THAT SEARCH ENGINES DO NOT INFRINGE TRADEMARKS – Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 & C-238/08 Google France SARL v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, 2010 ECJ EUR-Lex LEXIS 119 (Mar. 23, 2010)’ Harvard Law Review 124, no. 2(2010-2011): 651.

Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH (Case C-523/10) [2012] ETMR 31, para 34. Although the CJEU uses slightly less clear language in referring to ‘the technical display process by the advertiser’ (para 36), overall the CJEU highlights that it is the ‘advertiser choosing a keyword’ who uses it in the course of trade and that it is the ‘actions of the advertiser using the reference service for its own commercial communication’ which gives rise to infringement: para 35, emphases added.

The CJEU refers only to the passage from Google France confirming that selection of the disputed keyword, as the ‘means’ used to trigger display of the advertiser's advertisement, is an act conducted in the context of commercial activity and not as a private matter and thus is ‘in the course of trade’: Interflora Inc. and another v Marks & Spencer plc and another (Case C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1, para 30, referencing Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, para 52.

Broberg, M., and Fenger, N. 2010. Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice, 406. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Discussed in, for example: Kulk, S. 2011. Search engines – searching for trouble? European Intellectual Property Review 33, no. 10: 607–612; Dogan, S. 2010. Trademark remedies and online intermediaries. Lewis & Clark Law Review 14, no. 2: 467–48 (with a US perspective); Stalla-Bourdillon, S. 2011. Uniformity v. Diversity of Internet Intermediaries' Liability Regime: Where does the ECJ stand? Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 6, no. 1: 54.

Advocate General, Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras AG48–AG50, AG58 and AG114–AG125.

See also Red Bull where the CJEU held that the acts of the intermediary, the bottler, ‘may be attributed to [its] customer’ but without explaining how: Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH (Case C-119/10) [2012] ETMR 16 (‘Red Bull’), para 36.

Although Casenote, ‘TRADEMARK LAW’ (reference 14 above) argues that Google France could have been resolved on traditional principles, this applies at most only to claims under Article 5(1) TMD, not Article 5(2) TMD. Even the Advocate General had to import overriding issues of freedom of expression and freedom of commerce in a novel way into his Article 5(2) infringement analysis in order to remove Google entirely from liability: Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras AG102-AG113.

The provider's services will typically be dissimilar to the goods and services of the trade mark owner and thus only actionable under Article 5(2) TMD by owners of marks ‘with a reputation’, but even then with some difficulty and potentially divergent outcomes on a case-by-case basis in terms of proof of unfair advantage or detriment.

Grimmelmann, J. 2007-2008. The Structure of Search Engine Law. Iowa Law Review 93, no. 1: 52 and 62. See also: Casenote ‘TRADEMARK LAW – INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY – EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE HOLDS THAT SEARCH ENGINES DO NOT INFRINGE TRADEMARKS – Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 & C-238/08 Google France SARL v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, 2010 ECJ EUR-Lex LEXIS 119 (Mar. 23, 2010)’ Harvard Law Review 124, no. 2(2010-2011): 654-655; Dogan, S. 2010. Trademark remedies and online intermediaries. Lewis & Clark Law Review 14, no. 2: 471.

Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras 57 and 119; Commission Communication. 2012. A coherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market for e-commerce and online services. COM(2011) 942 final, Brussels, 11 January 2012, 13.

Griffiths, A. 2007. The trade mark monopoly: an analysis of the core zone of absolute protection under Art 5(1)(a). Intellectual Property Quarterly 3: 312–349.

Arsenal Football Club Plc v Reed (Case C-206/01) [2003] 3 WLR 450, paras 50 and 51, referring also to the Court's earlier free movement of goods case law.

Arsenal Football Club Plc v Reed (Case C-206/01) [2003] 3 WLR 450, para 55.

Simon, I. 2005. How does ‘essential function’ doctrine drive European trade mark law? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 36, no. 4: 418.

Compare Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Arsenal Football Club Plc v Reed (Case C-206/01) [2003] 3 WLR 450 (‘Arsenal’) and Advocate General Jacobs in Parfums Christian Dior SA and Another v Evora BV (C-337/95) [1997] ETMR 323. The CJEU had alluded to other functions in other cases (e.g. Evora, see Simon, I. 2005. How does ‘essential function’ doctrine drive European trade mark law? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 36, no. 4: 419; and Adam Opel AG v Autec AG (Case C-48/05) [2007] ETMR 33, para 25) but had not specifically identified or granted protection to any such function in an Article 5(1)(a) claim.

L'Oréal SA v Bellure NV (Case C-487/07) [2009] ETMR 55 (‘Bellure’), para 58.

Senftleben, M. 2011. Trade mark protection – a black hole in the intellectual property galaxy? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 42, no. 4: 384. For further concerns, see Jacob LJ in L'Oréal SA and Others v Bellure NV and Others [2010] ETMR 47.

L'Oréal SA v Bellure NV (Case C-487/07) [2009] ETMR 55, para 59. The reference to ‘absolute’ protection in Recital 10 has more commonly been understood as deemed damage to the essential function: LTJ Diffusion SA v Sadas Vertbaudet SA (Case C-291/00) [2003] ETMR 83, para 49; Simon, I. 2005. How does ‘essential function’ doctrine drive European trade mark law? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 36, no. 4: 414; Ohly, A. 2010. Keyword advertising or why the ECJ's functional approach to trade mark infringement does not function. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 41, no. 8: 880; Senftleben, M. 2011. Adapting EU Trademark Law to New Technologies - Back to Basics? In Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives, ed. C. Geiger. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (accessed at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1875629, 29 October 2012), 2. For a slightly different view, see Morcom, C. 2012. Trade marks and the Internet: where are we now? European Intellectual Property Review 34, no. 1: 52.

Senftleben, M. 2011. Trade mark protection – a black hole in the intellectual property galaxy? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 42, no. 4: 385; M. Senftleben. 2011. Adapting EU Trademark Law to New Technologies - Back to Basics? In Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives, ed. C. Geiger. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (accessed at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1875629, 29 October 2012), 13.

Advocate General, Interflora Inc. and another v Marks & Spencer plc and another (Case C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1, para AG8.

Interflora Inc. and another v Marks & Spencer plc and another (Case C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1, paras 39–40.

Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras 84 and 90. Repeated in: Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni (Case C-278/08) [2010] ETMR 33, paras 35–36; Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV (Case C-558/08) [2010] ETMR 52, paras 37-39.

See respectively: Senftleben, M. 2011. Adapting EU Trademark Law to New Technologies - Back to Basics? In Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives, ed. C. Geiger. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (accessed at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1875629, 29 October 2012), 19; and Ohly, A. 2010. Keyword advertising or why the ECJ's functional approach to trade mark infringement does not function. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 41, no. 8: 880.

Datacard Corporation v Eagle Technologies Ltd [2011] RPC 17 (‘Datacard’), para 263; Bednarz, T. 2011. Keyword Advertising Before the French Supreme Court and Beyond – Calm At Last After Turbulent Times for Google and Its Advertising Clients? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 42, no. 6: 660.

Interflora Inc. and another v Marks & Spencer plc and another (Case C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1, para 50; Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni (Case C-278/08) [2010] ETMR 33, paras 42–43; Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV (Case C-558/08) [2010] ETMR 52, paras 34–35.

Respectively: Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, para 92; Interflora Inc. and another v Marks & Spencer plc and another (Case C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1, para 60.

Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier and Joined Cases (Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08) [2010] ETMR 30, paras 91–93 and 97.

Ohly, A. 2010. Keyword advertising or why the ECJ's functional approach to trade mark infringement does not function. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 41, no. 8: 880. See also: Datacard Corporation v Eagle Technologies Ltd [2011] RPC 17, para 271; Ott, S. and Schubert, M. 2011. ‘It's the ad text, stupid’: cryptic answers won't establish legal certainty for online advertisers. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 6, no. 1: 29–31.

Interflora Inc. and another v Marks & Spencer plc and another (Case C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1, paras 42, 57–59.

Interflora Inc. and another v Marks & Spencer plc and another (Case C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1, paras 60–65.

Bengoetxea, J., MacCormick, N. and Moral Soriano, L. 2001. Integration and Integrity in the Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice. In The European Court of Justice, eds. G. de Búrca and J.H.H. Weiler, 45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

See for example: Arsenal Football Club Plc v Reed (Case C-206/01) [2003] 3 WLR 450; Davidoff & Cie SA and Zino Davidoff SA v Gofkid (Case C-292/00) [2003] ETMR 42.

Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System, presented by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich, 15 February 2011, Part III ‘Legal Analysis’: para 2.179 (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/tm/index_en.htm, last accessed 29 October 2012).

Griffiths, A. 2011. An Economic Perspective on Trade Mark Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; Senftleben, M. 2011. Adapting EU Trademark Law to New Technologies - Back to Basics? In Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives, ed. C. Geiger. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (accessed at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1875629, 29 October 2012), 1–7; Van der Laan, N. 2012. The use of trade marks in keyword advertising - developments in ECJ and national jurisprudence. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 12-06 (available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2041936, accessed 29 October 2012), 8–13 and 24–25.

See variously: Senftleben, M. 2011. Adapting EU Trademark Law to New Technologies - Back to Basics? In Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives, ed. C. Geiger. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (accessed at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1875629, 29 October 2012), 14, 18; Senftleben, M. 2011. Trade mark protection – a black hole in the intellectual property galaxy? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 42, no. 4: 386; Ohly, A. 2010. Keyword advertising or why the ECJ's functional approach to trade mark infringement does not function. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 41, no. 8: 880–881; Van der Laan, N. 2012. The use of trade marks in keyword advertising - developments in ECJ and national jurisprudence. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 12-06 (available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2041936, accessed 29 October 2012), 24.

Van der Laan, N. 2012. The use of trade marks in keyword advertising - developments in ECJ and national jurisprudence. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 12-06 (available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2041936, accessed 29 October 2012), 34–49; Bednarz, T. 2011. Keyword Advertising Before the French Supreme Court and Beyond – Calm At Last After Turbulent Times for Google and Its Advertising Clients? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 42, no. 6: 663–667; Schubert, M., and Clark, B. 2011. ‘Wintersteiger’ – Austrian Supreme Court refers jurisdiction question in Adword cases to the ECJ. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 6, no. 5: 288–290; Clark, B. 2012. Going bananas? Bundesgerichthof decides Bananabay II. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 7, no. 2: 84–86.

Senftleben, M. 2011. Adapting EU Trademark Law to New Technologies - Back to Basics? In Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives, ed. C. Geiger. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (accessed at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1875629, 29 October 2012), 22.

Dinwoodie, G. 2010. Trade mark harmonisation – national courts and the European Court of Justice. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 41, no. 1: 1–3. Other writers have also expressed support for development of the law on intermediary liability through case law (e.g. Stalla-Bourdillon, S. 2011. Uniformity v. Diversity of Internet Intermediaries' Liability Regime: Where does the ECJ stand? Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 6, no. 1: 51–61). Dinwoodie argues that the CJEU has resisted the temptation to act as a de facto legislature in the keywords cases and refers to case law development in the US as a possible model. However, the extent to which analogies can be drawn between the case law development of EU laws and the laws of other systems are limited: Dyrberg, P. 2001. What should the Court of Justice be doing? European Law Review 26, no. 3: 295–296.

Phillips, J. 2011. L'Oréal, eBay and the tyranny of the unknown. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 6, no. 10: 671.

de la Mare, T., and Donnelly, C., 2011. Preliminary rulings and EU legal integration: Evolution and stasis. In The Evolution of EU Law, eds. P. Craig and G. de Búrca, 376. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reference 6 above. See also the calls for legislative reform in: Senftleben, M. 2011. Adapting EU Trademark Law to New Technologies - Back to Basics? In Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives, ed. C. Geiger. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (accessed at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1875629, 29 October 2012), 22; Advocate General, Interflora Inc. and another v Marks & Spencer plc and another (Case C-323/09) [2012] ETMR 1, para AG9; Horton, A. 2011. The implications of L'Oreal v Bellure – a retrospective and a looking forward: the essential functions of a trade mark and when is an advantage unfair? European Intellectual Property Review 33, no. 9: 550–558.

Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System, presented by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich, 15 February 2011 (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/tm/index_en.htm, last accessed 29 October 2012), Part III ‘Legal Analysis’, paras: 2.175, 2.202 and 2.219-2.220 on secondary liability; 2.160, 2.171, and 2.206–2.207 on the ‘own commercial communication’ test; 2.179 and 2.184 on the Bellure ‘functions’ analysis; 2.221-2.222 on Article 5(5); and 2.180, 2.183, 2.225 and 22.259-2.266 on referential use and relevant defences.

See: L'Oréal SA and others v eBay International AG and others (Case C-324/09) [2011] ETMR 52, paras 125-144; Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM (Case C-70/10) [2012] ECDR 4; SABAM v Netlog (Case C-360/10) [2012] 2 CMLR 18.

See the consultation ‘A clean and open Internet: public consultation on procedures for notifying and acting on illegal content hosted by online intermediaries’ (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2012/clean-and-open-internet_en.htm, closed September 2012, last accessed 29 October 2012). Although not considered in Google France, Article 14 ECD should be applicable to ISPs facing trade mark infringement claims: Stalla-Bourdillon, S. 2011. Uniformity v. Diversity of Internet Intermediaries' Liability Regime: Where does the ECJ stand? Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 6, no. 1: 56.

For a detailed consideration of such issues and the role of appropriately tailored remedies from a US perspective, see Dogan, S. 2010. Trademark remedies and online intermediaries. Lewis & Clark Law Review 14, no. 2: 467–489.

Senftleben, M. 2011. Adapting EU Trademark Law to New Technologies - Back to Basics? In Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives, ed. C. Geiger. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (accessed at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1875629, 29 October 2012), 20.