Australia: Australia's evolving legal position on use of other trader's brands in online advertising

Last Updated: 4 February 2014
Article by Karen Hayne, Melissa Corbutt and Ashleigh Fehrenbach


The law in Australia continues to develop regarding use of competitor brands including use in domain names, in the content of online ads and use of Google Adwords.

Google's position is now clear with the Australian High Court unanimously holding in Google Inc v Australian competition and consumer commission (2013) HCA 1 that Google was not liable for misleading or deceptive conduct in respect of advertisements published using its online Adwords service, in circumstances where other traders' brands were used in online advertisements (Google Case) . The High Court determined that "Google has no control over a user's choice of search terms or an advertiser's choice of keywords" and should not be responsible for misleading or deceptive conduct of its customers, as the advertisements were predetermined by the advertisers, not Google.

While Google's position in Australia may be clear, various advertisements in the Google Case were found to be misleading and deceptive, and the traders held responsible for those advertisements.

So while Google may permit businesses to bid on and use terms (including other traders' trade marks), businesses must tread carefully when deciding what terms to use and how to use them online.

Below we look at some recent Australian cases to review the Australian Courts' views of what will and will not be permissible conduct online and also touch on Google's own policy (post the Google Case).

Google - A Change in Policy

After the Google Case, Google amended its AdWords Trademark Policy (Policy) in Australia to mirror the Policy in other parts of the world.

Before 23 April 2013 (because of decisions in the Google Case in the Courts below) if a trade mark was being used as a Google Adword in Australia, trade mark owners could file a Google Adword Complaint. Google could then (under its Policy) restrict the use. Under the updated Policy, Google no longer restricts advertisers purchasing and using trade marks as keywords in Google Ads (formerly known as "sponsored links"). Google will now only restrict use if the trade marks are used and actually appear in the text of the resulting Google Ad.

As such, trade mark owners can still complain to Google about unauthorised use of their trade marks in ad text (including as a domain name), and Google can take steps to restrict this use. However, the Policy is limited in its application. For example, Google will:

  • Only investigate claims where the trade mark is an exact match to the registered trade mark. Near matches to a trade mark will not be investigated. For example if your mark is "Two Left Feet Dance Company" and the mark you are complaining of is "Two Left Legs Dance Company", your complaint is unlikely to be investigated;
  • Not review claims where a trade mark is being used as a subdomain. For example, if you own the domain name "" and you lodge a complaint about the domain name "", this complaint is unlikely to be investigated.

Further, a Google Ad may only be taken down temporarily. There are instances where the writers have made a complaint, only to find that an offending Google Ad reappears weeks later. This places a time consuming and costly burden on brand owners and may require multiple complaints regarding the same advertisement.

Additionally, there is a level of scepticism as to Google's commitment to enforcing its own policies. For example, on 24 October this year Google published a large banner ad alongside the search results for "southwest airlines". In 2005, then Google executive, Marissa Mayer, stated:

"There will be no banner ads on the Google homepage of Web search results pages," and that "There will not be crazy, flashy, graphical doodads flying and popping up all over the Google site. Ever."

The Policy, although still an option for brand owners, is not a robust mechanism for dealing with online advertising issues. Particularly given its limited parameters and apparent lack of consistent enforcement by Google.

While traders can be guided by the Policy, other traditional areas of law are also being used in Australia to determine these types of disputes and are shaping the parameters of acceptable conduct, including trade mark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off, as some of the cases below illustrate.

Since the Google Case, the Australian Federal Court has dealt with a number of disputes relating to online advertising and related conduct. The cases cover a number of issues, but below we highlight some of the key determinations of the Court that might guide traders as to the boundaries of acceptable conduct in Australia currently. Additionally, these cases also illustrate that whether or not use by one trader of another trader's brand (or part of it) will be found to be unlawful, might also depend on the distinctiveness of the brand itself.

Lift Shop Case

Lift Shop Pty Ltd (Liftshop) v Easy Living Home Elevators Pty Ltd (Easy Living) [2013] FCA 900 dealt with issues of search engine optimisation, a useful strategy for brand owners, as it can propel a website into the ever coveted first page of search engine results.

Lift Shop owns the following Australian registered trade mark:

(Lift Shop Mark).

Lift Shop and Easy Living are competitors in Australia. Both supply elevators and lifts within the same price range and trade within New South Wales, as well as online.

In 2011, Easy Living employed the assistance of a search engine optimisation agency to tailor its website located at (Website) and the content of its home page, so it appeared higher in search engine rankings for particular key words. In particular, the term "lift shop" was selected as a key word and added into the title of the Website and home page.

Google search results for the term "lift shop" displayed as Easy Living's listing follows:

"Easy Living Lifts | Home Elevators | Lift Shop – Lift Shop

At Easy Living home elevators website you will find details on all of our lifts and home elevators here, which will help you achieve the easy living you deserve."

At the date of the hearing the result displayed: "Easy Living Lifts | Home Elevators | Lift Shop – Home passenger Lifts"

Lift Shop commenced proceedings against Easy Living claiming trade mark infringement;

misleading and deceptive conduct; and passing off (although this action was not pursued at the hearing).

The Court found that whilst one of the objectives of Easy Living was to appear in the same search results as Lift Shop, it did not mean that Easy Living was suggesting that it was, or associated with, Lift Shop.

The term "lift shop" was found to have a generic connotation and the Court gave consideration to the fact that other businesses in the same market were also identified if a search for "lift shop" was conducted.

Easy Living did not try to associate itself with Lift
Shop, but instead endeavoured to obtain business by openly competing with Lift Shop. Easy Living provided evidence that it did not want to be associated with Lift Shop's business and that its reputation was not enhanced by any association, as it was a supplier of European goods and Lift Shop supplied Chinese goods.

The Court determined there were a number of differences between the entries on the respective search pages reinforcing the view that the parties were not associated. Emphasis was placed on the fact that before any meaningful commercial exchange could take place, potential customers would need to take a further step by entering either of the parties' websites, at which point it would be obvious that the two parties were not related.

The Court found that Easy Living was using the term "Lift Shop" in the title of its Website in a descriptive manner to maximise search rankings. It was not being used as a 'trade mark'. Other businesses in the industry were also using the descriptive term "lift shop" in the title of their websites to boost rankings.

Lift Shop's application was dismissed. This case illustrates the difficulties faced by brand owners who have, as part of their trade mark a descriptive element. Had the facts of this case involved a trade mark without a descriptive element, it is likely that Lift Shop's case would have been a far stronger one and perhaps the ultimate result more favourable.

Thredbo (Ski Resort) Case

In Kosciusko Thredbo (KT) v ThredboNet Marketing (TNM) [2013] FCA 562, KT had, since 1987, owned the head lease of Thredbo, as well as all the mountain operations such as the lift infrastructure and ski school. It also owned and operated the website located at "". KT did not at the relevant time, own any registered Australian trade marks containing the word Thredbo.

TNM leased out a small number of apartments in Thredbo and advertised through the website located at and had also registered numerous business, domain and company names containing the word "Thredbo".

KT claimed, among other things, that TNM's conduct in registering domain, company and business names containing "Thredbo", and in particular the operation of its websites with similar content and branding to KT's, constituted misleading and deceptive conduct.

KT also claimed that TNM used similar get up to KT, including the use of the colour red, similar fonts, phrases, and slogans. KT also provided examples of confusion from customers making accommodation bookings.

KT also argued that TNM's use of a hyperlink and website address known as the "Genkan link" was sufficiently similar to that of KT's slogan "My Thredbo" (depicted above) to constitute misleading and deceptive conduct by TNM.

The Genkan link contained the address of www. and was provided by an automated booking system via email to all TNM's customers. The link opened to a webpage entitled 'My Thredbo Accommodation Booking'.

The Court determined there was no misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to TNM's domain names, slogans or websites (with the exception of those that used the term 'My Thredbo'). Instead, it was found that TNM's conduct constituted legitimate competition in the business of providing accommodation services and facilities.

The Court did, however, find in relation to the Genkan link and the use of "My Thredbo" on TNM's website, that there was a real risk that use of the link could mislead reasonable consumers into believing that the Genkan link was affiliated with, or part of, the business of KT. Relief was available to KT in respect of the Genkan link, however not in relation to the remainder of its claim.

Given the term Thredbo comprises a geographical location, this case is another illustrating the difficulties with protection of marks with a descriptive flavour.

Real Estate Advertising

In REA Group Ltd (REA) v Real Estate 1 Ltd (RE1) [2013] FCA 559 the Court looked at various domain names and logos which had also been registered as trade marks.

Since 1998, REA has operated websites located at and since 2002 at Since 2008, RE1 has operated websites at and "".

Both REA and RE1 used the webpages as portals for customers wishing to list properties for sale or rent.

In October 2010 REA (the clear market leader) commenced proceedings against RE1 for trade mark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off.

REA alleged that RE1 had infringed REA's registered trade marks. See the table below for REA's trade marks and RE1's domain names and logos.

The Court determined that the essential or distinguishing feature of REA's Mark was the domain name in its entirety, as the words "real estate" alone were descriptive of the goods and/ or services of REA. It held that the RE1 Logo was not deceptively similar to REA's Mark and did not infringe REA's Mark as the RE1 Logo was differentiated by the use of the capital E; the orange colour; different font; and the placement of the house after the words "realEstate1", which meant that the words "realEstate1" were the dominant feature of the RE1 Logo.

It was noted that "" was both a brand and a domain name and that each of the RE1 Domains was deceptively similar to REA's Mark, as it was likely that a consumer would look at the whole of the domain name and that some consumers would not notice the "1". As such they would infringe REA's Mark.

When comparing REA's Commercial Mark to RE1's Commercial Logo, the Court found that the RE1 Commercial Logo did infringe REA's Commercial Mark, as the main feature of RE1's Commercial logo was the word "realcommercial" which was a word invented by REA. It was determined that each of the RE1 Commercial Domains infringed REA's Commercial Marks.

Claims for misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off failed. The Court found that the use of "" by REA clearly distinguished REA from other competitors in the market. RE1's use of similar branding to REA was not necessarily done with an intention to mislead and deceive, despite RE1's "less than honourable" reasons for using such branding. The use of the number 1 was enough to alleviate consumers of confusion with REA's branding.

Further, it was unlikely that a consumer would mistakenly click on RE1's website, as the first few pages of any search engine results were to pages on REA's websites and if a consumer mistakenly went to an RE1 website, the consumer would immediately know they went to the wrong website given REA's dominance of the market. Further, RE1's organic results and sponsored link activities did not establish that a substantial number of "ordinary" or "reasonable persons" were, or were likely to, have been misled or deceived.

The case also highlights again the difficulties of claiming and protecting a monopoly in a brand that uses descriptive words.

Vendor Advocacy Case

Finally, the case of Vendor Advocacy Australia Pty Ltd (VAA) v Seitanidis [2013] FCA 971. Unlike the REA case, there were no relevant registered trade marks and the matter was determined solely on the basis of misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off.

The claim was brought by VAA, a business conducted by Ian Reid, against Mr Seitanidis (who worked previously for VAA either as an employee or contractor).

VAA routinely used the following types of branding, but did not hold any trade marks.

The conduct complained of by Mr Seitanidis included the registration and use of a large number of domain names including the term "vendor advocacy" and related conduct, including placing various Google Adwords campaigns which:

  1. contained the phrase 'Vendor Advocacy Australia – a free service to omesellers.';
  2. referred to the domain ''; and
  3. sought to obtain visitors to Mr Seitanidis' website at the internet domain 'vendoradvocacy com'.

VAA did not claim a monopoly on the term "Vendor Advocacy" which was generally used in the industry, but wished to prevent conduct of Mr Seitanidis which it said would lead to consumers being misled into contacting Mr Seitanidis' business when they were looking for VAA.

In yet another case involving terms which were descriptive and used by other traders, the Court was not satisfied that VAA could prove the required reputation and secondary meaning. Part of the problem was that the focus of the promotion of VAA had centred around Ian Reid, such that the Court did not think consumers would be misled if they came across the terms "vendor advocacy" or "Australian Vendor Advocacy", into thinking it was, or associated with, VAA.

The Court also considered that consumers dealing with online advertising, including use of descriptive terms in similar domain names by different traders, would not necessarily be misled and consumers would be "vigilant when confronted... with many domain names referring the phrase "vendor advocacy"". Use of descriptive terms by competing businesses, likewise, would not necessarily constitute misleading and deceptive conduct. In the circumstances of this case, if consumers were faced with various websites using the descriptive term "vendor advocacy" they would not assume an association between the various businesses, although may be "confused" as to the various vendor advocates. However, this was because of use of the descriptive term and not because of anything Mr Seitanidis may have done.

Unlike REA (who could rely on its trade marks) VAA was not so lucky and failed in its proceedings.


An issue left undetermined to date, is whether or not the bidding on key words by businesses which are registered trade marks of other brand owners, might in itself give rise to some form of infringing conduct or a threat to so engage.

The law in the area of online advertising will continue to evolve in Australia. The cases to date highlight some key issues for brand owners including when brands are chosen which include descriptive words. In these circumstances, stopping use by other traders in online advertisements (or otherwise) will be more difficult and without registered trade marks, perhaps impossible.

Businesses need to remain diligent about their own online advertising strategies, as well as protecting their brands and trade marks from mis-use by other traders.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Karen Hayne
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.