Abstract
Abstract On 22 September 2009 Advocate General Poiares Maduro issued hisOpinion on Google Adwords in three joined cases. The article presents the factual background of the cases (I.) and examines how the AdvocateGeneral has dealt with the trademark issues involved (II.). Whereas the trademark prong of the AdvocateGeneral’s Opinion seems sound, its prong dealing with webhosting issues appears to raise more questions than it provides answers (III.). The so called “neutrality” requirement which the Advocate General found in Art. 14 of Directive 2000/31 (E-Commerce Directive) is analysed in depth by Ruessmann/Melin in CRi 2009, pp. 161- 165, earlier in this issue.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
