Competitor bidding on your trademark: can you stop it?

Published on 11 November 2026

Competitor bidding on your trademark in Google Ads is allowed in the Netherlands, but you can have the ad stopped if it suggests a link with you, leaves unclear whose offer it is, or rides on a well-known mark. As a Dutch IP lawyer at MAAK Advocaten in Amsterdam, I help foreign brand owners stop such ads and help advertisers answer a Dutch cease-and-desist letter.

This article, part of intellectual property law in the Netherlands, is for foreign brand owners and for foreign webshops that advertise to Dutch customers. Marketers call it brand bidding.

Can a competitor bid on your trademark in the Netherlands?

Yes, as a rule. Buying your trade mark as a keyword is use of your mark. But you can only prohibit it if the ad obscures who is behind the offer or, for a well-known mark, rides on its reputation.

A Benelux trade mark owner can prohibit unauthorised use in the course of trade, including “in advertenties” (in advertising) (Article 2.20(1), (2) and (3)(e) Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (BCIP)). Article 9(2) and (3)(e) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation gives the same right for an EU trade mark. Article 10 of the Trade Marks Directive does so for national marks.

The advertiser who selects your mark as a keyword uses it, because the keyword triggers the ad (Court of Justice, Google France, paras. 51–52). That is true even when your mark is not in the ad itself (BergSpechte, para. 19). Paying more per click for your own name is no ground for a ban. Your own site still appears in the natural results (Google France, paras. 94–98; Interflora, operative part 1).

Which trade mark do you need to act in the Netherlands?

A Benelux trade mark, an EU trade mark, or an international registration that extends to the Benelux or the EU. A registration that covers only the United States or the United Kingdom gives you no rights here.

Registration gives the owner an exclusive right (Article 2.20(1) BCIP; Article 9(1) EU Trade Mark Regulation). That includes an international registration whose protection extends to the Benelux (Article 2.2 BCIP). In Fleurop, the court applied international word marks with effect in the Benelux and the EU (paras. 2.3 and 4.18). Article 5 of the Dutch Trade Name Act prohibits a business name that causes confusion with another firm’s older trade name. In the Transportainer case, such a claim failed because the claimant did not show that the competitor used the sign as its trade name (District Court of The Hague 16 September 2025, Transportainer, para. 4.23).

I would rather tell you this now than after a procedure. Without a registration that covers the Benelux or the EU, look at what the competitor does beyond the keyword. If he presents himself under your name in the ad or on his website, there may still be a case. And register a Benelux or EU trade mark for the goods you actually sell in Europe. That does not solve today’s dispute, but next time you will be in a strong position. See also Dutch trade name law.

When does bidding on your trademark become infringement?

When the ad suggests an economic link with you, or is so vague that a normally informed and reasonably attentive internet user cannot tell whether the offer comes from you. For a mark with a reputation, free-riding and imitation also count.

Those tests come from Google France (operative part 1, paras. 84 and 89–90). For a keyword that is similar to your mark, such as a misspelling, the same test applies (BergSpechte, paras. 39–41).

Situation	Outcome	Source
Ad makes clear it is another company	As a rule allowed	Google France, operative part 1; District Court of The Hague 25 April 2025 (LEGO), para. 4.9
Ad suggests a link with the brand owner	Infringement	Google France, para. 89
Ad so vague that its origin is unclear	Infringement	Google France, para. 90
Brand sold through a network of independent retailers	Confusion arises more easily	Interflora, para. 52
Mark with a reputation: imitation or free-riding	Ban possible	Interflora, operative part 2, para. 90
Mark with a reputation: fair alternative	No ban	Interflora, operative part 2, para. 91

In a Dutch case brought by Fleurop, a rival flower webshop kept “fleurop” as a keyword after removing it from the ad text. Ad texts such as “Bloemisten-netwerk” (florists’ network) suggested a link with the Fleurop network. The court found infringement of the EU and Benelux word marks (District Court of Midden-Nederland 19 September 2023, Fleurop, paras. 4.8 and 4.16–4.18). That some customers switch to a competitor is not enough for a ban (Interflora, para. 64).

A competitor may, as a rule, bid on your name. What he may not do is leave your customer unsure who he is. My aim is usually not to get him out of the search results, but to remove the confusion. That is faster, and it holds up in court. So I demand that his own name and the difference with you are clear at a glance. Do you sell through independent dealers or installers in the Netherlands? Then I demand that he stops using your mark as a keyword for ads that do not show he is outside your network.

A Dutch competitor’s ad is sending your customers to the wrong company? Have the ad and your trade mark assessed by a Dutch IP lawyer before you write to the competitor.

What should you do when you see the ad?

Record it first: date, search term, ad text and landing page, searched from the Netherlands. An ad appearing on your name does not by itself prove the keyword was bought (Transportainer, paras. 4.21–4.22).

My advice: record first, judge second.

1. Have someone in the Netherlands capture the ad with date, time, search term and landing page, on a few different days.
2. Check which trade mark you own for the Netherlands, and for which goods or services.
3. Look at the ad through your customer’s eyes. Does it say “official”, “authorised dealer” or “our network”?

With those three things we can quickly judge your case.

In Transportainer, the competitor explained that Google itself shows ads from providers in the same category, and the brand owner lost on that point. See also enforcing trade mark rights in the Netherlands.

Cease-and-desist letter or kort geding: what can a Dutch court order?

A sommatie (cease-and-desist letter) asks the competitor to stop or change the ad. If that fails, the preliminary relief judge in kort geding (summary proceedings) can order an injunction with a penalty and disclosure of impressions, clicks and conversions.

In Fleurop, the court ordered the competitors to stop infringing, including the keyword use for the ads described. It also ordered disclosure of impressions, click-throughs and conversions, both backed by penalties (operative parts 5.1–5.4). Disclosure of profits was refused (para. 4.25). Urgency exists in principle as long as the alleged infringement continues (Transportainer, para. 4.3).

Damages and surrender of profits are, as a rule, decided in proceedings on the merits. In kort geding the court is reluctant to award even an advance (Fleurop, paras. 4.29–4.30). The court refuses surrender of profits if the use was not in bad faith or circumstances do not justify it (Article 2.21(1), (2) and (4) BCIP). On request, the losing party pays the winner’s reasonable and proportionate legal costs, unless fairness dictates otherwise (Article 1019h Dutch Code of Civil Procedure). That risk applies to brand owners too. In Transportainer, the brand owner lost on its keyword, copyright and imitation claims and paid the competitor’s costs (paras. 4.24–4.27).

Every week the ad runs, Dutch customers end up with the wrong company. So I keep the route short. First a letter with a short deadline that says exactly which ads must stop or change. If nothing happens, kort geding is the logical next step. With the disclosed figures we build your damages claim. You do not need to travel for this: we run the case from Amsterdam, and you give us the documents and your decisions.

You received a Dutch cease-and-desist letter about your ads: what now?

Do not sign the enclosed undertaking straight away. Check your ads: your own brand visible, no suggestion of a link, a clear landing page. An adjusted ad can end the matter without giving up the keyword.

An ad that offers an alternative without imitation, dilution or tarnishment is allowed (Interflora, operative part 2). Do you resell genuine goods first put on the market in the European Economic Area by the brand owner or with its consent? Then you may in principle advertise them under that brand. The exception is an ad that suggests an economic link or seriously damages the mark’s reputation; “used” or “second-hand” alone is not enough (Portakabin, operative part 3; Article 2.23(3) BCIP). An ad text that compares products also falls under the rules on comparative and misleading advertising under Dutch law.

In kort geding a defendant may appear in person, but cannot be represented by anyone who is not an advocaat (Article 255(1) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure). See also trade mark disputes in the Netherlands.

Bidding on a competitor’s name is a normal marketing choice, in the Netherlands too. It goes wrong in the ad, not in the keyword. My checklist:

• your own brand is in the headline of the ad;
• you do not use the competitor’s trade mark in the ad text;
• you do not suggest a link, so no “official”, “authorised” or “certified”;
• the landing page shows at once who you are.

We look at your ads and keyword list together. An adjusted ad can be the quickest end to the dispute, without giving up a keyword that brings you sales. Never sign an undertaking with a penalty that is broader than the ads in question.

Practice example: a US heat pump maker (illustration)

Suppose a US heat pump manufacturer owns an EU trade mark and sells through independent Dutch installers. A Dutch competitor buys the mark as a keyword and advertises “Certified installer near you”, without its own brand. This is an illustration, not a real case.

A customer cannot see that this advertiser is outside the network. That is the risk described in Interflora (para. 52), and what the court found in Fleurop (paras. 4.16–4.17). The manufacturer has the ads recorded, sends a sommatie and, if needed, seeks an injunction and disclosure in kort geding. With its own name in the headline and without “certified”, the competitor would offer a recognisable alternative.

When do you need a Dutch lawyer?

As a brand owner, once an ad sends Dutch customers to the wrong company, certainly with a dealer network or a well-known brand. As an advertiser, once a Dutch letter or summons arrives, or before a large campaign on a competitor’s name.

A claimant can only act through an advocaat, a lawyer admitted in the Netherlands (Article 79(2) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure).

As a Dutch IP lawyer at MAAK Advocaten, I record the ads, assess your trade mark and the ad, and choose the step that fits your goal: an adjusted ad, a settlement or kort geding. In IP cases I litigate in preliminary injunction proceedings and on the merits. We handle the trade mark law, the evidence and the Dutch procedure.

How does MAAK Advocaten handle keyword advertising disputes?

We act for brand owners who want a confusing ad stopped and for advertisers who received a Dutch letter or summons. We start with the ads and your goal, then work in four steps.

1. Record the ads and check the Benelux or EU registration.
2. Test the ad against Article 2.20 BCIP or Article 9 EU Trade Mark Regulation.
3. Send a sommatie, or a reasoned reply to one.
4. Where needed, kort geding or proceedings on the merits before the Dutch courts, in first instance and on appeal.

Frequently asked questions

Is it legal to bid on a competitor’s brand name in the Netherlands?

Yes, as a rule. The brand owner can stop it only if the ad suggests a link with the brand owner, leaves unclear whose offer it is, or rides on a mark with a reputation through imitation or free-riding (Google France; Interflora).

Can I use a competitor’s trade mark in my ad text?

That is riskier than the keyword. Use of a sign “in advertising” can be prohibited under the same conditions as other infringing use (Article 2.20(3)(e) BCIP; Article 9(3)(e) EU Trade Mark Regulation). Comparative advertising contrary to Directive 2006/114/EC can also be prohibited (Article 2.20(3)(f) BCIP).

Does my US or UK trademark protect me in the Netherlands?

Only if it extends here. A Benelux trade mark, an EU trade mark or an international registration covering the Benelux or the EU gives you rights (Articles 2.2 and 2.20(1) BCIP). A US or UK registration on its own does not. If nothing covers Europe, file for the goods you sell here.

Can Google be held liable for a competitor’s ad?

Google does not use the trade mark itself (Google France, operative part 2). Without an active role it benefits from the hosting exemption. It loses that only if it fails to act quickly once aware of the unlawfulness (operative part 3; now Article 6 Digital Services Act). Your claim is against the advertiser.

Do I need a Dutch lawyer to respond to a Dutch cease-and-desist letter?

For the reply it is wise rather than required. In kort geding you may appear in person as defendant, but nobody other than an advocaat may represent you (Article 255(1) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure). In proceedings on the merits before the district court, an advocaat is required (Article 79(2)).

Primary sources

• Article 2.2 Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (BCIP) (Benelux and international registrations), Article 2.20 BCIP (paras. 1, 2 and 3(e) and (f)), Article 2.21 BCIP (paras. 1, 2 and 4) and Article 2.23 BCIP (para. 3): rights of the trade mark owner, damages and surrender of profits, exhaustion
• Article 5 Dutch Trade Name Act: confusing trade names
• Article 79, Article 255 and Article 1019h Dutch Code of Civil Procedure: representation by an advocaat, the defendant in kort geding, legal costs in IP cases
• Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark (consolidated text of 1 December 2025): Article 9(1), (2) and (3)(e)
• Directive (EU) 2015/2436 (Trade Marks Directive): Article 10(1) to (3)
• Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act): Article 6 and Article 89 (references to Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC now read as references to Article 6)
• Court of Justice 23 March 2010, C-236/08 to C-238/08, Google France and Google, ECLI:EU:C:2010:159: operative parts 1–3, paras. 51–52, 84, 89–90 and 94–98
• Court of Justice 25 March 2010, C-278/08, BergSpechte, ECLI:EU:C:2010:163: paras. 19 and 39–41
• Court of Justice 8 July 2010, C-558/08, Portakabin, ECLI:EU:C:2010:416: operative part 3
• Court of Justice 22 September 2011, C-323/09, Interflora and Interflora British Unit, ECLI:EU:C:2011:604: operative parts 1–2, paras. 52, 64 and 90–91
• District Court of Midden-Nederland (preliminary relief judge) 19 September 2023, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2023:4800 (Fleurop): international and EU word marks (para. 2.3); keyword in a network market; injunction and disclosure; no advance on damages (paras. 4.29–4.30)
• District Court of The Hague (preliminary relief judge) 25 April 2025, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:7003 (LEGO): mere use as a keyword is no infringement if the ad shows there is no economic link (para. 4.9)
• District Court of The Hague (preliminary relief judge) 16 September 2025, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:17010 (Transportainer): proof that the keyword was bought; costs (paras. 4.3 and 4.21–4.27)

A competitor bidding on your brand in the Netherlands, or a Dutch letter about your own ads? Send me the screenshots and the letter: call +31 20 210 31 38 or send your question through my page as Dutch intellectual property lawyer. — Arnout Gieske