In brief

From 23 April 2013, Google will no longer pre­vent users of its AdWords pro­gramme from using anoth­er par­ty’s reg­is­tered trade marks as key­words in Chi­na, Hong Kong, Macau, Tai­wan, Aus­tralia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Brazil. Whilst this brings Google’s AdWords pol­i­cy into line with oth­er juris­dic­tions world­wide, trade mark own­ers must now be even more vig­i­lant in mon­i­tor­ing the mar­ket, and in par­tic­u­lar the search engine opti­mi­sa­tion strate­gies of com­peti­tors to ensure that valu­able rights are not infringed or a com­pet­i­tive advan­tage lost.


Google has announced that it will allow the use of trade marks as key­words in its AdWords pro­gramme from 23 April 2013.

Google’s revised trade mark pol­i­cy for Chi­na, Hong Kong, Macau, Tai­wan, Aus­tralia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Brazil comes in the wake of the High Court deci­sion dis­cussed in our arti­cle last month Busi­ness Own­ers – Take Care When Buy­ing Spon­sored Links.

To recap, the High Court ulti­mate­ly found that Google had no respon­si­bil­i­ty for the terms users of its AdWords pro­gramme chose and that it is in fact users of the ser­vice (and not Google) who are liable for any rep­re­sen­ta­tions they make as a result of the use of AdWords search terms.

Under the revised pol­i­cy, Google will not inves­ti­gate the use of trade mark terms in key­words even if a trade mark com­plaint is received. This means that it will be even more impor­tant for a brand own­er to con­sid­er secur­ing its key brands or reg­is­tered trade marks as AdWords for its own goods and ser­vices, so as to pre­vent a com­peti­tor from doing so. With the removal of the cur­rent rel­a­tive­ly straight-for­ward pro­ce­dure of lodg­ing a com­plaint, and seek­ing removal of the com­plained term through Google, it will be incum­bent on trade mark own­ers to be much more proac­tive in secur­ing all key terms as pos­si­ble search terms.

It also makes a mar­ket or com­peti­tor mon­i­tor­ing pro­gram much more impor­tant as a tool for ensur­ing a brand or port­fo­lio is not dilut­ed or deval­ued by com­peti­tor activity.

From 23 April 2013, if a com­peti­tor does obtain anoth­er brand name or trade mark as a key word, it will be more dif­fi­cult, time con­sum­ing and expen­sive to stop any improp­er use. The only option (if the com­peti­tor is not pre­pared to give up the use of the term vol­un­tar­i­ly) is to take Court action against the com­peti­tor for trade mark infringe­ment or mis­lead­ing and decep­tive con­duct. This will be sig­nif­i­cant­ly more expen­sive and time con­sum­ing than the cur­rent Google com­plaints process.

If at the moment you are aware of any use of your brands or trade marks by com­peti­tors as part of AdWords you need to take action about that now, and before 23 April, in order to take advan­tage of the cur­rent process.

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Putting the West­pac Work­ing From Home Case in Perspective

Can employ­ees real­ly work from home if they want to? In a recent Fair Work case an employ­ee won the right to…

The risk of builder insol­ven­cy mid way through a con­struc­tion project is real (and will prob­a­bly be expensive)

Intro­duc­tionThis arti­cle pro­vides guid­ance to those under­tak­ing con­struc­tion works and iden­ti­fies a num­ber of con­tract pro­vi­sions which, if includ­ed in the…

Cross-Com­pa­ny Secu­ri­ty and Liq­uida­tor Chal­lenges: Full Fed­er­al Court Restores Cer­tain­ty in CEG Direct Secu­ri­ties v Coop­er [2025] FCAFC 47

A sig­nif­i­cant deci­sion from the Full Fed­er­al Court has clar­i­fied the lim­its of liq­uida­tors’ pow­ers to unwind cross-com­pa­ny secu­ri­ty grant­ed…

In the News

What the West­pac flex­i­ble work rul­ing real­ly means for employers

Michael Byrnes’ arti­cle ​“What the West­pac flex­i­ble work rul­ing real­ly means for employ­ers”, was pub­lished on HRM Online on 2…

Michael Byrnes dis­cuss­es the West­pac WFH case on 2SM with Tim Webster

Michael Byrnes appeared on Break­fast with Tim Web­ster on 2SM on 27 Octo­ber 2025 to dis­cuss the West­pac Work from…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, What hap­pens when an employ­ee runs out of sick leave?”, pub­lished in HRM Online on 21 Octo­ber 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“What hap­pens when an employ­ee runs out of sick leave?”, pub­lished in HRM…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information