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.