KEYWORD ADVERTISING


developed algorithms that disregard meta tags when determining search rankings. Te decline of meta tags coincided with the consolidation of keyword advertising as a way to achieve better placement on search rankings.


To the extent that more and more consumers use search engines to find businesses and conduct price surveys, being present on the first page of results is fundamental. When natural search results are not satisfactory, strategic positioning can be obtained through keyword advertising. Website owners offer advertisers the possibility to choose certain words that may be related to their activities. A search for those keywords will generate sponsored links which are oſten accompanied by short promotional texts. Te links are displayed alongside natural search results that correspond to terms entered by the user.


Keyword advertising is an effective way to reach segmented audiences. Sponsored links are shown only when the keyword chosen by an advertiser is entered by the user. Potential traffic is generated instantaneously. In addition to this fast targeted display, the ‘pay-per-click’ method of charge also counts as an advantage. Te price-per-click varies upon demand for the relevant terms, as search engines allow advertisers to bid on keywords. But even for high bid keywords, traffic to the advertiser’s website may be generated for a fraction of the cost of more traditional forms of advertising.


A recent study by Interactive Advertising Bureau Brasil predicts that online ad spend will surpass 3 billion Brazilian reais ($1.7 billion) in 2011. Keyword advertising will correspond to half of that amount. Te estimated growth of 25 percent in relation to last year would make keyword advertising count for 5 percent of all the advertising spend in Brazil. Legal issues emerge from this impressive increase, in particular those related to the selection of competitors’ trademarks as keywords. Although practice demonstrates that many disputes are resolved amicably, the Brazilian judiciary has pronounced important decisions on when such selection is abusive.


One of the most important cases was decided in March 2010 by the Tenth Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeals for the State of Sao Paulo. Te court analysed an appeal against the first instance decision that condemned defendants for the crime prescribed in article 195, item III, of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (BIPL). According to this provision, a crime of unfair competition is perpetrated by anyone who employs fraudulent means to divert consumers of another person to his or another party’s advantage. Te court affirmed the previous judgment, using an interpretation very similar to the initial interest


www.worldipreview.com


10bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.


“RIGHTS HOLDERS


HAVE SUCCESSFULLY APPLIED UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW TO STOP IMPROPER FREE-RIDING ON THE


GOODWILL ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR MARKS, EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL CONFUSION.”


confusion doctrine applied in the well known case Brookfield Communications, Inc v West Coast Entertainment Corporation, decided by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


According to the Sao Paulo court, the selection of the trademark Pistelli as a keyword was sufficient to unduly divert consumers of the trademark owner, even if actual confusion was not demonstrated. When entering Pistelli in the search engines, consumers were provided highlighted links to the web pages of advertiser Formatto, a direct competitor of the trademark owner. Te court found that it is very common for a user to click on sponsored links, due to their placement on top of results pages. And once Pistelli’s consumers clicked on the link sponsored by Formatto, they would be directed to the competitor’s website, where they would be exposed to the products and services of the defendant.


Another precedent discussed the legitimacy of keyword advertising in relation to free competition and consumer protection laws. Based on those norms, Brazilian commentators have maintained that use of a competitor’s mark in keyword advertising may be deemed legitimate comparative advertising. Te Tird Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals for the State of Rio de Janeiro addressed the issue in a judgment of April 2009. Te court recognised that free competition is a general principle of the economic order, as prescribed by article 170, item IV, of the Federal Constitution. Tis legitimises comparative advertising to promote goods and services. However, as noted in the decision, free competition should not justify dishonest practices that ultimately harm competitors and consumers. Te court concluded that the abusive use of keyword advertising is an act of unfair competition as defined by article


Te decisions above indicate that use of a competitor’s trademark in keyword adverting may be deemed illegal when it is likely to divert consumers. Rights holders have successfully applied unfair competition law to stop improper free-riding on the goodwill associated with their marks, even when there is no evidence of actual confusion.


Finally, the illicit use of keyword advertising may also be prosecuted under trademark and consumer protection laws. Following article 189 of the BIPL, trademark infringement is likely to be found, particularly when a mark registered in Brazil is displayed within the promotional text of the sponsored link. Moreover, it could represent a violation of the Brazilian Consumer Protection Code, which sets as a principle the efficient restraint and repression of dishonest business methods in consumer market relations, including the inadequate use of trademarks and trade names. n


Alysson H. Oikawa is a senior associate at Bhering Advogados. He can be contacted at: bhe@bheringadvogados.com.br


Alysson H. Oikawa is a Brazilian copyright and trademark attorney at Bhering Advogados since 2003. He holds a communications degree from the Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana and a law degree from the Universidade Federal do Parana in Brazil. Oikawa obtained an LLM degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the United States. His professional practice extends to advising domestic and international clients on marketing law, unfair competition and the draſting of licence agreements. He is also an adjunct professor at Centro Universitario Curitiba and a visiting instructor at other institutions teaching IP-related courses.


Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 1


39


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60