<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google&#8217;s use of trade-marks as keywords might be infringement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://canton.elegal.ca/2009/04/09/googles-use-of-trade-marks-as-keywords-might-be-infringement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://canton.elegal.ca/2009/04/09/googles-use-of-trade-marks-as-keywords-might-be-infringement/</link>
	<description>eLegal Canton: technology law blog by a Canadian information technology and intellectual property law lawyer and trade-mark agent dealing with issues including software, copyright, privacy, the Internet, electronic commerce, computers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:40:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Why Google Shouldn&#8217;t Be Liable For Suggesting Trademarked Terms In AdWords &#124; Tech News Direct</title>
		<link>http://canton.elegal.ca/2009/04/09/googles-use-of-trade-marks-as-keywords-might-be-infringement/comment-page-1/#comment-2827</link>
		<dc:creator>Why Google Shouldn&#8217;t Be Liable For Suggesting Trademarked Terms In AdWords &#124; Tech News Direct</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://canton.elegal.ca/?p=1038#comment-2827</guid>
		<description>[...] why the recent ruling about Google&#039;s potential liability for suggesting trademarked keywords doesn&#039;t make much sense. His key point is a good one:  Perhaps Google did suggest a competitor&#039;s mark -- but trade-mark [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] why the recent ruling about Google&#8217;s potential liability for suggesting trademarked keywords doesn&#8217;t make much sense. His key point is a good one:  Perhaps Google did suggest a competitor&#8217;s mark &#8212; but trade-mark [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Web News Site &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Why Google Shouldn&#8217;t Be Liable For Suggesting Trademarked Terms In AdWords</title>
		<link>http://canton.elegal.ca/2009/04/09/googles-use-of-trade-marks-as-keywords-might-be-infringement/comment-page-1/#comment-2825</link>
		<dc:creator>Web News Site &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Why Google Shouldn&#8217;t Be Liable For Suggesting Trademarked Terms In AdWords</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:16:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://canton.elegal.ca/?p=1038#comment-2825</guid>
		<description>[...] why the recent ruling about Google&#039;s potential liability for suggesting trademarked keywords doesn&#039;t make much sense. His key point is a good one:  Perhaps Google did suggest a competitor&#039;s mark -- but trade-mark [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] why the recent ruling about Google&#8217;s potential liability for suggesting trademarked keywords doesn&#8217;t make much sense. His key point is a good one:  Perhaps Google did suggest a competitor&#8217;s mark &#8212; but trade-mark [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blawg Review #207</title>
		<link>http://canton.elegal.ca/2009/04/09/googles-use-of-trade-marks-as-keywords-might-be-infringement/comment-page-1/#comment-2815</link>
		<dc:creator>Blawg Review #207</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:34:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://canton.elegal.ca/?p=1038#comment-2815</guid>
		<description>[...] nothing like what the DoJ has gone through lately, but Google has probably had better weeks too. David Canton of eLegal notes, and questions, a US Court of Appeals ruling that Google&#8217;s sale of a trademarked term [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] nothing like what the DoJ has gone through lately, but Google has probably had better weeks too. David Canton of eLegal notes, and questions, a US Court of Appeals ruling that Google&#8217;s sale of a trademarked term [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

