Some (but not all) Google Sponsored Links Found to Infringe
According to the court,
Based on this finding, Google may be liable for trademark infringement for the time period before it began blocking such usage or for such ads that have slipped or continue to slip through Google's system for blocking the appearance of GEICO's mark in Sponsored Links. For, despite the flaws in the survey, the extremely high percentages of respondents who experienced some degree of confusion when viewing such ads provides sufficient evidence to survive defendant's Motion for Judgment. Further, having been advised by defendant that it has no evidence to introduce on this last issue, the Court finds that plaintiff has established a likelihood of confusion, and therefore a violation of the Lanham Act, solely with regard to those Sponsored Links that use GEICO's trademarks in their headings or text.
Aware of the importance of these issues to the ongoing evolution of Internet business practices and to the application of traditional trademark principles to this new medium, the Court emphasizes that its ruling applies only to the specific facts of this case, which include the unique business model employed by plaintiff and the specific design of defendant's advertising program and search results pages, in addition, the Court has not addressed several remaining legal issues, including whether Google itself is liable for the Lanham Act violations resulting from advertisers' use of GEICO's trademarks in the headings and text of their Sponsored Links, as accomplished through Google's Adwords program. That significant issue remains to be resolved, either through an agreement by the parties or in a continuation of the trial. Also unresolved is the timeframe during which violations occurred and the measure of damages or other relief to which plaintiff may be entitled if Google were to be found liable.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in open court, as amplified by this Memorandum Opinion, defendant's Motion for Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (c) has been granted in part and denied in part. The Court has temporarily stayed this civil action to give the parties time to consider these rulings and determine whether they can resolve the remaining issues of liability and damages.
Ron Coleman, at the Likelihood of Confusion Blog, calls the decision "Not all that encouraging. That's the mess judges are making of this area of law -- and it's not as if this one didn't take her sweet, sweet time getting to this point..."