LloydLaw LLP

How dangerous is online legal research?

There's a bizarre story in the latest Law Society Gazette (the Law Society's official flagship) publication which would be really funny, if it wasn't supposed to be true.

The essence of the story is that lawyers are running the risks of providing negligent advice by relying on the results of internet research from less than authoritative sources. You know, like Google, and the much maligned Wikipedia.

"Evidence has emerged that increasing numbers of solicitors, from trainees to senior partners, are putting clients and their own practices at possible risk by using collaboratively written online encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Google and other search engines for legal research".

Trainees I can well understand but senior partners? That's just preposterous. I can't imagine any senior partner anywhere relying on the results of a Google search or Wikipedia as authoritative.

The Gazette even takes up the point in an editorial advising its readership (i.e. solicitors) that:

"It really shouldn't need pointing out again, but the internet as a medium is never entirely trustworthy. Unlike authoritative - and generally paid-for online resources, search engines (for example) may flash up the ramblings of deluded (if enthusiastic amateurs). Facts may be wrong or out of date. Or both".

I would be amazed if all but the tiniest minority of solicitors rely on web searches for legal detail. I suspect that whilst we all use Google and other search engines, it's self evident that these cannot be relied upon and I've got no idea why the Gazette is making the incredibly obvious point. I know that some of us solicitors may not be quite as clever as we'd like to think we are, but, heh, we're not that stupid.

Google Trademarks Policy and the Threat of Legal action in the UK

UK retailers are reportedly considering taking legal action against Google, following changes to its trademarks policy in the UK and Ireland.

These changes, which took effect on 5 May 2008, allow advertisers to use any keywords which are relevant to their business and the interests of Google users (which I tend to think counts for most of us).

The crucial change is Google’s statement that “we will no longer review a term corresponding to the trademarked term as a keyword trigger”.

 Roughly translated, this appears to mean that you can use any trademark term you like as a keyword, whether it belongs to a competitor or not and it lifts Google's ban on restrictions that prevented companies from being able to bid for trademarks, as keywords.

 In its Policy Revision Statement Google asks the question (in an FAQ style):

 “Does this mean that I can now use trademark terms as keywords?”

 It responds:

“Google in not in a position to make recommendations regarding the use of terms corresponding to trade marks. If you have further questions, we encourage you to contact your legal counsel and consult the Adwords Terms and Conditions”.

I think I need to come back to the complexities of Google’s position and its relationship with other people's trademarks, but it’s safe to say they have taken legal advice and they are quoted in The Lawyer article as being confident of their position.

My assumption is that Google would argue that a registered trade mark is not infringed by their use of the trademark as a keyword, because Google is not actually infringing on the mark itself. It’s simply acting as a facilitator. Google is not actually competing against the trade mark owners, and so arguably it’s not taking advantage of a trade mark, which may have a reputation and status, in the way that a direct competitor might.

Of course, the natural effect of using trade marks as key words is that they will cost a great deal more than “mere” keywords i.e. search phrases, and there may be arguments about Google taking advantage of trade marks there. EIther way, it's a fascinating develpment and one worth following, especially if the likes of lastminute.com actually go ahead and issue proceedings.