Advertiser Fails in Suit Against Trademark Owner over Google Trademark Complaint–Pandora Jewelers v. Pandora Jewelry

By Eric Goldman

Pandora Jewelers 1995, Inc. v. Pandora Jewelry LLC, 2011 WL 2174012 (S.D. Fla. June 2, 2011)

The plaintiff is a long-time single-storefront jewelry retailer in Florida (in a strip mall, naturally) with an e-commerce website. Pandora Jewelry, one of the main defendants, is an international jewelry manufacturer and retailer. To make things more complicated, the Florida Pandora retailer was an authorized distributor of the Pandora manufacturer’s goods for several years in the last decade. The parties terminated that relationship, the international Pandora moved more aggressively into opening retail outlets in Florida, and the Florida Pandora sued.

The lawsuit has lots of interesting angles, but I’m interested in Google’s role in the battle. The international Pandora submitted a trademark complaint to Google for “Pandora,” which affected about 67 advertisers, including the Florida Pandora. This meant that Florida Pandora couldn’t advertise on “Pandora Jewelry,” “Pandora bracelets,” “Pandora charms,” and “Pandora beads.” The opinion is ambiguous about the nature of international Pandora’s complaint, but given that it was placed by a Danish subsidiary, it appears that it was in Europe under Google’s old rules and thus prevented the Florida Pandora’s ads altogether on the blocked phrases. In the US, at most, the international Pandora should have only been able to block the Florida Pandora’s reference to “Pandora” in the ad copy.

Florida Pandora claimed the trademark block was a tortious interference. That claim fails because Florida Pandora couldn’t show the requisite malice in making the complaint. I believe the court is trying to say that because international Pandora was just attempting to enforce its trademark rights, the takedown lacked malice. The court also rejected several related claims by Florida Pandora.

Compare this discussion with yesterday’s post on the Twilight-themed song, where the court said that the takedown might constitute a violation of 17 USC 512(f), a tortious interference and a defamation. Today’s ruling is more comforting for rightsowners, but they shouldn’t get too comfortable. There are increasing signs that an overzealous takedown campaign entails significant legal risk.