Google v Louis Vuitton
European trademark case (2010)
Google France SARL and Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08), also known as Google v Louis Vuitton was a landmark decision in which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that search engines operators such as Google do not themselves infringe trademark rights if they allow advertisers to use a competitor's trademark as a keyword.
Facts
Vuitton has the Community trademark 'Vuitton' as well as the French trademarks 'Louis Vuitton' and 'LV'. These are widely accepted for having a well-renowned reputation.
In 2003, Vuitton detected that if internet users entered his trademark terms into Google's search engine, they would be directed to websites selling imitations of Vuitton's products, under the heading of 'sponsored links'.
Additionally, Google enabled the advertisers to use simultaneously with Vuitton's trademarks, expressions suggesting counterfeit products, such as 'imitation' and 'copy'. Thus, Vuitton brought a proceeding against Google, attempting to ascertain that it had infringed Vuitton's trademarks.
In 2005, the Regional Court of Paris rendered a decision determining that Google was guilty due to the infringement of Vuitton's trademarks. Subsequently, on appeal, the Court of appeal in Paris, confirmed the same outcome.
However, Google brought an appeal on a point of law to the Cassation court against the last judgement.
The public source identifies “Google v Louis Vuitton” as european trademark case (2010). This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Google, Louis and Vuitton.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Google v Louis Vuitton”, the useful work is to connect “european trademark case (2010)” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Dec 7, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q54959090. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2003 and 2005.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Google v Louis Vuitton”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Google v Louis Vuitton primary sources, Google v Louis Vuitton archive and Google research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Google v Louis Vuitton”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Google v Louis Vuitton” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.