02 December 2024
The High Court of Singapore recently ruled that using a competitor’s trade mark in Google Ads does not automatically amount to infringement. The key factor is whether there is a likelihood of confusion.
Case Summary
In East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2024]SGHC 102, East Coast Podiatry (ECP) claimed that Family Podiatry infringed its trade mark by using “East Coast Podiatry” in Google Ads.
The court found no infringement because:
- The URL in the ad (<www.familypodiatrycentre.com>) was distinct from “East Coast Podiatry.”
- The linked website clearly identified itself as “Family Podiatry Centre” with a matching logo and description, making it unlikely for consumers to assume a connection with ECP.
Key Takeaways
- Using a competitor’s trade mark in a Google Ad isn’t infringement if the URL and linked content make it clear there is no connection between the businesses. This situation in Singapore is largely reflective of those which exists in Australia, the USA, the EU and the UK where the emphasis is also on the avoidance of consumers being misled or deceived. However, using the trademark in the ad text without permission is prohibited. The context of the ad and the landing page is crucial in determining liability for trademark infringement. To this end, Google’s policies align with local trademark laws to ensure that ads do not cause confusion or deception.
- Brand owners must tread carefully when responding to such use, as aggressive action may trigger counterclaims for groundless threats. Seeking professional advice is recommended.
