The first constitutive ruling about this issue was given in Israel a few years ago as part 506/06 "Matim Li" vs "Crazy Line". On this issue, "Crazy Line" company, the competitors of "Matim Li ", released funded ad that comes in the search results by typing the keyword "Matim Li".
In its ruling the court ruled that in this case the respondent's actions do not constitute a breach of the applicant's trade mark, because the link to the respondent website appears where every sensible person understands that destiny of the ads is paid ad. In addition, there was no use at the ad itself in any of the plaintiff's trademarks.
In judgment (Tel-Aviv) the Traveler Center 48058-07-11 Ltd discussed subject of two companies from the 'traveler' groups.
One- the chain of stores and surplus stores, and the second- operator the " Traveler" website, claimed that Traveler and Soldier Center and the owner, operators website under the address " Traveler Surplus" that for its promotion they bought sponsored links from Google keywords of 'Traveler', which is an infringement of their trade mark.
The judge Dr. Daphne Avnieli partly accepted the claim. Determined that although there is a visual difference between the signs "Traveler Surplus" and the "Traveler", when a surfer types the word "Traveler" on Google, he might enter to the defendants site by mistake and think he arrives to the plaintiffs site, especially in light of the fact that they hold stores called "Travelers Surplus" so the extra word 'Surplus' is not sufficient to distinguish between the businesses, and remain a concern of misleading the public, especially when two companies that engaged in the field of tourism and recreation, and are aimed at the same customers.
It was also determined that the plaintiffs hold reputation in the field of addictive tourism equipment, and it seems that the defendants took advantage of this reputation in order to attract potential customers. It was also determined that the defendants, who were able to use the Google link that will lead to the "Traveler" chose to use misleading keywords of 'Traveler', and therefore violated the plaintiff's trade mark also by purchase the links in Google.
Eventually it was determined that the defendants compensate the plaintiffs because of passing off, false description and unfair intervention, and an order was issued that prevents them to use the word "Traveler".