{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020032051282051284, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.033816425120773, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Keywords Advertising: Issues of Trademark Infringement

The Internet has become a crucial advertising tool for modern-day businesses. Increasingly, business enterprises are opting for online presence, and this phenomenon has significantly transformed advertising techniques. Consumers wish to spend less time and gain optimal results whilst searching for products and services on the Internet. In this setting, enterprising entities, such as Google, have sought to make maximum use of the need for online presence which has given rise to Internet advertising schemes such as Google’s ‘AdWords. The purpose of this paper is to assess the merits (or otherwise) of the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Google v Louis Vuitton. The analysis will compare it with the approach of courts in the United States and also draw on English jurisprudence. The discussion undertaken by this paper is topical given the recent decision of the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) which appears to have followed the reasoning of the ECJ. The topicality is heightened given the absence of judicial precedence in France, and the decision to remand the cases back to the Court of Appeal for a case by case decision on Google’s civil liability.