You may generally bid on a competitor's brand, even a registered trade mark, as a keyword in Google Ads. The condition is that the ad makes it clear at first glance that another seller is making the offer. Once the competitor's brand appears in the headline or text of the ad itself, however, you risk a dispute over trade mark infringement and unfair competition. In such disputes, courts have prohibited advertisers from using even the keyword itself.
Customers never actually see the keyword. They see only the ad, and if it tells them that someone else is making the offer, there is nothing to confuse them. In Google France of 23 March 2010, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the trade mark proprietor may prohibit the advertiser from such use “in the case where that advertisement does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party” (Case C-236/08, operative part, point 1). A year later, in Interflora, the Court added that the purpose of a trade mark is not “to protect its proprietor against practices inherent in competition”, and that keyword advertising is such a practice, because its aim, as a general rule, “is merely to offer internet users alternatives to the goods or services of the proprietors of those trade marks” (Case C-323/09, paragraphs 57 and 58).
A Czech court took the same view of unfair competition. In a dispute over the generic designation “top shop”, the first-instance court stated that the claimant “has no title to appropriate the right to appear as the only competitor when the phrase in question is entered on the internet, or to determine the order of the individual competitors”, and the Supreme Court dismissed the claimants' appeal on points of law (file no. 23 Cdo 3338/2012).
A keyword is not automatically safe, though. The Court of Justice itself said that whether the trade mark is adversely affected “depends in particular on the manner in which that ad is presented” (Google France, paragraph 83). If the ad looks like an offer from the brand owner itself or from its business partner, it will not help you that the brand stayed hidden among your keywords. For trade marks with a reputation the line is tighter still: the ad must not offer “a mere imitation” of the proprietor's goods or services, nor dilute or tarnish the mark (Interflora, paragraph 95).
Then you are showing the competitor's brand to customers, and the risk rises sharply. The Czech Trade Marks Act expressly lists among the uses of a sign in the course of trade “use of the sign in business documents and in advertising” (Section 8(3)(d) of the Trade Marks Act), and the EU trade mark regulation contains the same rule: “using the sign on business papers and in advertising” (Article 9(3)(e) of Regulation 2017/1001).
Courts apply this in practice. In a dispute over the word marks TECOMAT and FOXTROT, a competitor that had previously worked with the mark owner advertised on those keywords with the text “Looking for Tecomat? Try Inels and keep track of what's going on at home!” (in the Czech original “Hledáte Tecomat? Zkuste to s Inels a mějte přehled o tom, co se doma děje!”). The courts prohibited it from using both signs “as keywords and in the text of advertisements”, and the Supreme Court concluded that “the defendant's conduct constituted an interference with the function of indicating the origin of the claimant's trade mark” (file no. 23 Cdo 4931/2017). In a dispute over the word mark ZLAŤÁKY, the word appeared “directly in the headline and then in the explanatory text” of a competitor's ad; the courts prohibited the competitor from using it “as a keyword in paid search engine optimisation systems”, and the Supreme Court rejected its appeal on points of law as inadmissible (file no. 23 Cdo 3681/2021).
In terms of unfair competition, this amounts to creating a likelihood of confusion. Under the Civil Code, that is also caused by anyone who uses a distinctive designation of another business “which is regarded in customer circles as characteristic of a particular business” (Section 2981(2) of the Civil Code). An ad headline that answers a search for the competitor with the competitor's name while leading to you is a textbook example.
Bear in mind, too, that Google itself may restrict ad text containing another's trade mark. Under its trademarks policy, Google Ads will not restrict “using trademarks as keywords”, but following a complaint by the owner it will restrict “using trademarks in an ad from a direct competitor”.
Most often an automated feature puts it there. According to the Google Ads help pages, “keyword insertion lets you automatically update your ads with the keywords in your ad group that caused your ads to show”, and for Dynamic Search Ads, “headlines and landing pages are also generated using content from your website”. So if a competitor's brand is among your keywords and keyword insertion is switched on, it can appear in your headline without anyone having typed it. An agency managing the campaign can put it there just as easily.
In that case the competitor will turn to you as the advertiser, not to Google or the agency. What matters for a prohibition is how customers saw the ad; who put it together in the account may play a role at most for monetary claims.
Nobody can reserve generic words that describe goods, even if a competitor has them in its logo or trade mark. The Trade Marks Act does not allow the owner to prohibit others from using indications “which concern the kind, quality, quantity, purpose, value, geographical origin, time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics thereof”, provided the use is in accordance with commercial customs and the principles of fair business dealings (Section 10(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act).
In the “top shop” dispute, the Supreme Court required a generic designation to have been “reasonably used and promoted in relation to the competitor over a longer period” and warned that the opposite approach “would mean that other competitors could effectively be restricted in using commonly used expressions”. In another dispute, concerning a porcelain decor, it held that if the claimant asserts distinctiveness, “it is up to it to prove that, thanks to its business activities, customers now associate this decor only with it” (file no. 23 Cdo 2421/2017). Whoever relies on a generic word must therefore first show that customers associate it specifically with them.
The line is narrow, however. You may use a generic word to describe your own goods. If you assemble generic words into exactly your competitor's name and put it in your ad headline, you open a dispute over whether that name has already become distinctive among customers, and such a dispute turns on facts you cannot predict in advance.
First check what your ad actually showed customers, including headlines assembled automatically. If the competitor's brand appeared in the text, it makes sense to remove it quickly, and you can do so without admitting any claim. An ad that keeps running with the competitor's brand in the headline after the letter has been delivered only weakens your position. As a rule, you may keep the keyword.
Do not pay automatically. The Supreme Court restated its settled case law that monetary satisfaction is awarded only if the injured party “has suffered non-pecuniary harm of such an extent or of such a kind that it cannot be remedied by appropriate satisfaction in a non-monetary form”, and that it is for that party to explain why monetary satisfaction is justified and why “precisely the amount claimed is appropriate” (file no. 23 Cdo 1409/2024). If a competitor asks you for a lump sum without explanation, you are entitled to ask what it is based on.
If you advertise on competitors' brands, keep the keywords, but review the headlines and descriptions of all ads they trigger and switch off keyword insertion in those ad groups. Make sure your own brand and domain are clearly visible in the ad and that the ad does not resemble the competitor in wording or appearance.
If, conversely, a competitor targets your brand, you usually cannot prohibit the keyword as such. You can step in if it shows your brand in the ad text or if the ad does not make clear that someone else is making the offer. If you have a registered trade mark, you can also file a complaint with Google in addition to writing to the competitor.
Source: Act No. 441/2003 Coll., on Trade Marks (Sections 8 and 10); Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code (Sections 2976, 2981, 2982, 2988 and 2989); Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark (Articles 9 and 14); judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU in Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08 (Google France) and Case C-323/09 (Interflora); Czech Supreme Court decisions cited in the text; Google Ads policies and help pages (as of 11 September 2026).
The Grand Chamber judgment of 23 March 2010 in Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, Google France, dealt with whether an advertiser may select another's trade mark as a keyword. Under the operative part, the proprietor may prohibit this “in the case where that advertisement does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party”. The decisive factor is thus how the ad looks: whether the trade mark is adversely affected “depends in particular on the manner in which that ad is presented” (paragraph 83).
The judgment of 22 September 2011 in Case C-323/09, Interflora, added that the purpose of a trade mark “is not, however, to protect its proprietor against practices inherent in competition”, and continued: “Internet advertising on the basis of keywords corresponding to trade marks constitutes such a practice in that its aim, as a general rule, is merely to offer internet users alternatives to the goods or services of the proprietors of those trade marks” (paragraphs 57 and 58). For a trade mark with a reputation it drew the line: “the proprietor of a trade mark with a reputation is not entitled to prevent, inter alia, advertisements displayed by competitors on the basis of keywords corresponding to that trade mark, which put forward – without offering a mere imitation of the goods or services of the proprietor of that trade mark, without causing dilution or tarnishment and without, moreover, adversely affecting the functions of the trade mark with a reputation – an alternative to the goods or services of the proprietor of that mark” (paragraph 95).
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the competitor that appeared in search results for a generic combination of words: by judgment of 30 October 2014, file no. 23 Cdo 3338/2012, it dismissed the claimants' appeal on points of law. The statements specifically about keywords were made by the first-instance court: “If, in the given situation, links to the defendants are displayed on an internet search engine when the keywords ‘top shop’ or ‘top-shop’ are entered, such conduct cannot be regarded as unfair competition.” On the generic designation, the Supreme Court itself stated that “it is necessary to require that such a generic designation has been reasonably used and promoted in relation to the competitor over a longer period”, and that “adopting the opposite conclusion would mean that other competitors could effectively be restricted in using commonly used expressions.”
The weight of the decision must be read precisely. It concerns a generic designation that was not distinctive of any competitor, and it does not deal with another's sign appearing in the displayed ad text.
The courts did so in two Czech disputes, both involving a distinctive word mark. In TECOMAT and FOXTROT (judgment of 16 April 2018, file no. 23 Cdo 4931/2017), a competitor advertised on keywords identical with the marks and asked in the ad text “Looking for Tecomat? Try Inels…”. The first-instance court stressed that “the parties to the dispute cooperated and developed the intelligent electrical installation system together”, so customers could not necessarily tell whose product it was. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law and itself found an interference with the origin function; it did not review the unfair competition objections on the merits.
In ZLAŤÁKY (decision of 28 February 2022, file no. 23 Cdo 3681/2021), the keyword appeared “directly in the headline and then in the explanatory text” of the ad. The courts also took into account the “finding of deliberate use of the claimant's trade mark on the defendant's website so as to give priority to its advertisement in the search engine” and prohibited the competitor from using the word as a keyword in paid advertising. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law as inadmissible, so it did not review the case on the merits, but it expressly refused the reading that “the Court of Justice practically excludes an infringement of trade mark rights, including a trade mark with a reputation, through the use of a keyword in an advertisement displayed on the internet promoting an alternative to the goods or services of the trade mark owner”. The rule “a keyword is always fine” therefore does not hold.
Often both, and a competitor may combine the two routes. Trade mark protection rests on registration. The owner may prohibit use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, use of a similar sign where “there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, including the likelihood of association between the sign and the trade mark”, and, for a mark “which has a reputation in the Czech Republic”, also use which “without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the reputation of the trade mark” (Section 8(2)(a) to (c) of the Trade Marks Act; for an EU trade mark, similarly Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001).
Unfair competition does not require registration. It is committed by anyone who “in the course of business comes into conflict with good competition morals through conduct capable of causing harm to other competitors or customers” (Section 2976(1) of the Civil Code), and the law expressly lists misleading advertising, creating a likelihood of confusion and free-riding on reputation among its examples (Section 2976(2)). Anyone without a registered mark must, however, prove that its designation is regarded in customer circles as characteristic of its business (Section 2981(2)) and, for free-riding, that it has a reputation that can be exploited; free-riding is “the misuse of the reputation of another competitor's business, product or service enabling the acquisition, for the results of one's own or another's business, of a benefit which the competitor would not otherwise obtain” (Section 2982).
The claims arising from unfair competition are listed in Section 2988 of the Civil Code: the injured party “may demand that the infringer refrain from unfair competition or remove the defective state. It may further demand appropriate satisfaction, compensation for damage and the surrender of unjust enrichment.” The law reverses the burden of proof only in favour of consumers: “If a consumer claims that the infringer should refrain from unfair competition or remove the defective state, and if it is one of the cases set out in Sections 2976 to 2981 or in Section 2987, the infringer must prove that it did not engage in unfair competition” (Section 2989(2)). A competitor suing another competitor therefore has to assert and prove everything itself.
On distinctiveness, the Supreme Court held in its judgment of 12 December 2017, file no. 23 Cdo 2421/2017, that “if a certain designation is not associated in the public mind exclusively with a particular competitor, the use of such a designation by other competitors is not contrary to good competition morals”. On monetary satisfaction, in its decision of 28 February 2025, file no. 23 Cdo 1409/2024, paragraph 16: “in order to award appropriate satisfaction in money, it must be proven in the proceedings that the injured party suffered non-pecuniary harm of such an extent or of such a kind that it cannot be remedied by appropriate satisfaction in a non-monetary form”.
Because the statutory exception comes with conditions. Section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act applies only “if the use is in accordance with commercial customs and the principles of fair business dealings”, and its letter (b) covers indications concerning the characteristics of the goods or services, typically the user's own range. For an EU trade mark, Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 says the same, with the express proviso: “Paragraph 1 shall only apply where the use made by the third party is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters” (Article 14(2)). A generic word used to make an ad resemble a competitor need not meet these conditions.
A similar rule applies in unfair competition. A generic designation is protected only if it has become characteristic of a particular business (Section 2981(2) of the Civil Code), and whoever seeks protection has to prove it. The practical advice for advertisers follows: use generic words to describe your goods, not to imitate your competitor's name.
Provisions cited from the current wording of Act No. 441/2003 Coll. and Act No. 89/2012 Coll. (e-Sbírka, verified on 11 September 2026) and of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (Official Journal L 154 of 16 June 2017). Case law verified from full texts: judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU of 23 March 2010 in Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08 (Google France) and of 22 September 2011 in Case C-323/09 (Interflora); Supreme Court judgments 23 Cdo 3338/2012 of 30 October 2014, 23 Cdo 2421/2017 of 12 December 2017 and 23 Cdo 4931/2017 of 16 April 2018, and decisions 23 Cdo 3681/2021 of 28 February 2022 and 23 Cdo 1409/2024 of 28 February 2025. Google Ads policies and help pages quoted as of 11 September 2026. Quotations from Czech statutes and Czech court decisions are our translation; quotations from EU law, EU judgments and Google are taken from the official English texts.
I will assess the specific ad and propose a course of action, from a complaint to Google to a letter to the competitor or a lawsuit. For advertisers, I will review the campaign before a cease-and-desist letter arrives.
Prefer not to use the form? E-mail me at tomas.elbert@advokatni.net or call +420 739 661 038.