Post by xyz3400 on Feb 20, 2024 3:23:06 GMT -7
There is no violation of the right to a given company's wordmark when the search result made in the e -commerce search engine with its name displays products from other companies. This was understood by the 2nd Chamber of Business Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice when reforming the first degree sentence that condemned Leroy Merlin for unfair competition. reproduction Reproduction TJ-SP says there is no trademark infringement in the results of e-commerce searches “The situation discussed here (results from e-commerce searches ) is no different from the consumer experience in physical stores. I explain. The customer can go to a physical store in search of a product from a specific brand and, there, the seller offers them products from other brands – and there is no illegality in that, since presenting different products is part of sales”, stated the rapporteur , judge Grava Brazil.
Leroy Merlin was sued by the company Dipart, which manufactures plastic chairs and owns the “marfinete” brand. According to Dipart, when searching for the terms “chair” and “marfinete” on the Leroy Merlin website, products from competing companies appeared. This situation, according to Dipart, would constitute misuse of the brand, unfair competition and consumer confusion. In the first instance, the action was Honduras Mobile Number List judged valid. But the TJ-SP unanimously reformed the sentence. “The appellee, initially, alleges that consumers looking for their products in the appellant's stores, when searching with the words "Marfinite Chair", would be directed to competitors' products, leading to error, undue association and confusion. However, for there to truly be mislead, undue association and confusion, it is necessary for consumers to be led to believe that they are purchasing products from the brand being appealed – which is not the case”, stated the rapporteur.
The situation discussed in the case, according to Grava Brazil, is different from the use of a keyword in Google AdWords with the purpose of purchasing an ad at the top of Google searches with the name of a competing brand. Therefore, the reasoning behind ads contracted by Google AdWords does not apply to the case in question. This is because Leroy Merlin is not a competitor of Dipart, but rather a platform for selling different products, whether competing or not. Furthermore, according to the rapporteur's vote, “the purpose of the search engine is to display products for sale, there is no purchase of keywords to display ads to capture customers. These differences, in themselves, already indicate the purposelessness of the action.” Grava Brazil concludes that, if there is no proof of violation of trademark rights and unfair competition, the obligation to do so and the compensation are not applicable.
Leroy Merlin was sued by the company Dipart, which manufactures plastic chairs and owns the “marfinete” brand. According to Dipart, when searching for the terms “chair” and “marfinete” on the Leroy Merlin website, products from competing companies appeared. This situation, according to Dipart, would constitute misuse of the brand, unfair competition and consumer confusion. In the first instance, the action was Honduras Mobile Number List judged valid. But the TJ-SP unanimously reformed the sentence. “The appellee, initially, alleges that consumers looking for their products in the appellant's stores, when searching with the words "Marfinite Chair", would be directed to competitors' products, leading to error, undue association and confusion. However, for there to truly be mislead, undue association and confusion, it is necessary for consumers to be led to believe that they are purchasing products from the brand being appealed – which is not the case”, stated the rapporteur.
The situation discussed in the case, according to Grava Brazil, is different from the use of a keyword in Google AdWords with the purpose of purchasing an ad at the top of Google searches with the name of a competing brand. Therefore, the reasoning behind ads contracted by Google AdWords does not apply to the case in question. This is because Leroy Merlin is not a competitor of Dipart, but rather a platform for selling different products, whether competing or not. Furthermore, according to the rapporteur's vote, “the purpose of the search engine is to display products for sale, there is no purchase of keywords to display ads to capture customers. These differences, in themselves, already indicate the purposelessness of the action.” Grava Brazil concludes that, if there is no proof of violation of trademark rights and unfair competition, the obligation to do so and the compensation are not applicable.