Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 3, 2003, and was ultimately settled out of court on August 8, 2005

Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. was a landmark case in the field of trademark infringement and search engine liability. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 3, 2003, and was ultimately settled out of court on August 8, 2005.

Background

American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. was an online retailer of window coverings, wallpaper, and other home decor items. The company had a registered trademark for the phrase "American Blind & Wallpaper Factory," which it used in its online advertising and marketing materials.

Google, on the other hand, was the world's leading search engine, offering users a way to search for and find information on the internet. Google sold ads based on keywords that advertisers bid on, with the ads appearing above or next to the search results. Advertisers could bid on keywords that were relevant to their business, and their ads would be shown to users who searched for those keywords.

In 2003, American Blind & Wallpaper Factory filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming that the search engine's AdWords program was infringing on its trademark. American Blind argued that Google was allowing its competitors to use the phrase "American Blind & Wallpaper Factory" as a keyword trigger for their ads, which would then appear when users searched for that phrase.

Legal Arguments

American Blind argued that Google's use of its trademark as a keyword trigger constituted trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, which prohibits the use of a mark in commerce that is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods or services.

Google, on the other hand, argued that its use of the trademark was protected under the doctrine of nominative fair use, which allows the use of a trademark to describe the trademarked product or service. Google also argued that it was not liable for the actions of its advertisers, who were responsible for creating and selecting the keywords that triggered their ads.

Court Decision

The court ultimately ruled in favor of Google, finding that its use of the trademark was protected under the doctrine of nominative fair use. The court held that Google's use of the trademark was necessary to describe the products and services offered by American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, and that it did not create a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

The court also found that Google was not liable for the actions of its advertisers, stating that the AdWords program was a neutral intermediary that merely provided a platform for advertisers to bid on keywords and display their ads.

Settlement

Despite winning the case, Google ultimately settled with American Blind & Wallpaper Factory out of court in 2005. Under the terms of the settlement, Google agreed to make a payment of $500,000 to American Blind and to prevent the use of American Blind's trademark as a keyword trigger in the future.

Impact

The Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. case had a significant impact on the field of trademark law and search engine liability. The case established the doctrine of nominative fair use as a defense against claims of trademark infringement in the context of search engine advertising, and it clarified the extent of liability that search engines have for the actions of their advertisers.

In addition, the case highlighted the importance of selecting appropriate keywords for search engine advertising and the potential risks of using another company's trademark as a keyword trigger. Companies that engage in search engine advertising should be aware of the legal and ethical considerations surrounding the use of trademarks in this context, and should take steps to ensure that their advertising campaigns comply with applicable laws and regulations.