Följande uppsats har utarbetats i syfte att utreda gällande rätt inom ett nytt och tämligen oreglerat område; marknadsföring på internet genom kanaliserad data. Med hjälp av data från bland annat konsumenternas sökhistorik och personuppgifter kan marknadsföring numera skräddarsys genom att identifiera enskilda konsumenters behov. Detta kallas personprofilering. Genom personprofilering kan betydande steg i konsumentens beslutsprocess begränsas och näringsidkaren kan därigenom anses leda konsumenten till ett köp, vilket kan bädda för illa genomtänkta köpbeslut. Tack vare den information som nu finns tillgänglig för näringsidkarna, har företagen fått ett kunskapsövertag gentemot konsumenterna. Detta gör konsumenterna, som skyddsobjekt, i ännu större behov av rättsligt skydd. I uppsatsen utreds både svensk- och europeisk rätt på området för att kunna göra en bedömning om personprofilering är förenligt med 5 och 6 §§ MFL, god marknadsföringssed, motsvarande artikel 5(2) i direktivet 2005/29/EG om otillbörliga affärsmetoder. Som ett led i detta arbete belyses genomsnittskonsumenten och vad denne kan anses ha för ställning i förhållande till näringsidkaren idag samt huruvida personprofilering kan bedömas inverka manipulativt på konsumenten. I analysen framkommer att personprofilering inte bör betraktas vara i strid med 5 och 6 §§ MFL, med bakgrund av att metoden (1) inte kan anses strida mot god marknadsföringssed med den normgivningen som finns idag, (2) antagligen ej bör anses påverka genomsnittskonsumentens förmåga att fatta ett välgrundat beslut och (3) även om personprofilering skulle bedömas ha ekonomisk effekt, är det inte önskvärt att bedöma en affärsmetod vara otillbörlig utifrån effekten. I praktiken föreligger det dock en risk i att bedöma personprofilering vara förenligt med 5 och 6 §§ MFL, och därför bör en mer omfattande reglering på området eftersträvas.

Keyword advertising is based on advertisers buying keywords, brands if they so wish, with a search engine service to optimize their marketing by ads or websites linked to the purchased keyword to rank as high as possible among the organic and sponsored search lists. Regarding this type of marketing, the European Court and the Swedish Market Court made clear that the trademark holders of famous brands can not prevent a competitor from using the brands as a keyword for their own ads if the use merely indicates that the competitor offers an alternative to the protected brand's products or services. Despite this, this kind of use is questionable, given that the marketing tends to be perceived as deceptive, sponging on others reputation and not in line with good marketing, which is a natural consequence considering the use of competitors' famous brands to attract consumers.   My primary aim with this paper is to describe the legal risks within market law concerning keyword advertisements, especially in the context of good marketing practices and that includes the principle of conflicting laws as a basis for claiming unfair marketing according MFL. My secondary intention is to assess the possibilities of transferring the Swedish Market Courts general conclusion about keyword advertising, which is that keyword advertising is an appropriate advertising method, in relation to domain name disputes, based on the use of a competitor's brands in their domain name.   The current available laws and regulations gives no clear indication of how keyword advertising should be treated and therefore the Swedish Market Court’s practice has been crucial for assessing the issue. The brand’s different functions should have been damaged if the trademark shall be regarded as violated, however, considered keyword advertising with famous brands is viewed as a natural part of the competition and compatible with the advertising purpose and as an adaptable situation to maintain the investment function and thereby attract loyal consumers.   The available cases concerning keyword advertising does not include any assessments whether the risk of sponging of the reputation or dilute the brand, despite extensive use of it as keywords, in both ads and keyword holder's website. Current practice indicates that the greatest risk with keyword advertising is misleading marketing. This is because it is expected of the trademark holder to adapt to the situation by competing with the same methods to further stimulate competition and therefore it becomes difficult to argue that trade mark functions is being damaged by the use of the brand and reputation being diluted. The actual risk, greatest risk with keyword advertising, which can be ascertained from the current practice, is misleading marketing. What remains unclear is whether a total dilution of the brand’s reputation is the only basis that makes it possible to claim sponging on a competitor’s brand as conflicting to good marketing.   Overall, considered the use of competitor’s famous brand in keyword advertising with the current legal position into account, is viewed as an appropriate, comparative advertising which does not take unfair advantage of another trader's reputation and only brings the average Internet user's attention to an alternative. A transfer of this conclusion to domain name disputes is highly unlikely, however, is the infringement of trade mark possible. Whether sponging on competitors brands would be a reasonable basis to claim within the market law concerning domain name disputes are uncertain, however, the conflict of law principle is possible to claim when the trademark infringement is conflicting to good marketing and thus is unfair marketing accordance with general clause of good marketing within the Swedish Market Law.