AdWords Trademark issues [Archive] - Search Engine Watch Forums

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

06-15-2004, 09:40 AM

I am not sure if this applies to Google in all countries but here in Denmark we have recently been seeing an increase in trademark violating expanding of keywords. Let me give you one example I ran into with a local account.

The client is in the banking sector and the campaign is to market loans to private people. One of the keywords used was, naturally, the Danish word “lån” (which means “loan”). One day we get a letter from the lawyer of another loan company here that have the protected trademark “Ikano” and ask why we advertise on his trademark.

It turns out, that Google expand the generic word “loan” into registered trademarks, like Ikano, in this case.

Now, in this case we did off course just add “Ikano” as a negative word but what is next? We do not want to use phrase or exact match for this account as there are so many different searches where “loan” is part of the query. We do off course filter out the most obvious negative keywords (like “free” and all the adult words that always seem to appear, no matter what business you are in!). But, it will be an administrative nightmare if we have to constantly monitor what protected trademark Google will expand to the next time. Not just for “loan” but any generic or specific keyword.

Now, the legal question is: Who is violating the trademarks here?
My claim is that Google is. We did not bid for the protected trademark “Ikano”, nor did any information on the Google site at the time we set up the campaign suggest they would, and Google never e-mailed or called us and said that they changed the system. In my opinion we did not violate any trademarks by bidding on “loan” – Google did, by expanding it into “Ikano”.

But what do you think? How do you (as an SEO) advise your clients about this? Or do you at all? :)

doppelganger

06-15-2004, 10:07 AM

I think the general course of action recommended is to load up on the negative keywords when you're running broad match. But you're right... there's only so much control you have over it.

My suggestion is to check your log files. Your log files will show you all the broad match terms you are buying... Google doesn't.

This brings up an AdWords feature I'd like to see... something that details all the broad match terms you would be buying, or have bought.

rustybrick

06-15-2004, 10:10 AM

This is always a popular topic at the SES conferences, in NYC I wrote notes (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/000175.html) on the session. Since then Google revised its policy.

Google's US policy is that they allow for bidding on trademark names but do not allow the trademarked names in the ad text. I do not think it works this way outside the US, I think they are more strict outside the US.

With your specific case, I would feel Google is more liable. However, using the exclusion parameter is something that was mentioned over and over again at the SES session in order for you to stay away from these issues. Better to be safe then sorry.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

06-15-2004, 10:16 AM

The problem is that Google does not tell me as an advertiser when they add new trademarks to generic terms I am bidding on. And that really lead to the secand part of the problem: Google does not give me as an advertiser sufficient tools to stay clear of such trademark violations and as a trademark holder Google doesent give me any tools at all to check if others (or Google, by expanding) violate my trademarks.

Log files only show actual clicks on the ads - not the ad impressions, and from a legal point of view it by showing the add on a trademarked term that the violation takes place.

doppelganger

06-15-2004, 10:20 AM

Log files only show actual clicks on the ads - not the ad impressions, and from a legal point of view it by showing the add on a trademarked term that the violation takes place.

That's a REALLY good point... I know we are very focused on clicks, but several studies have shown the power that search has on branding.

rustybrick

06-15-2004, 10:40 AM

There is no doubt that the AdWords customer is at a disadvantage here.

All you can do is exclude the trademarks that you know apply to your industry. Anything else is too much work.

Any chance we can get a lawyer in here that deals with this topic to discuss?

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

06-15-2004, 01:15 PM

I am sure there are lawyers that lurke here - and some might post, but don't expect them to do more than the rest of us: Discuss the issue :)

cline

06-15-2004, 01:24 PM

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

06-15-2004, 01:45 PM

> No one will pursue it further, as the effort isn't worth the expense.

Well, the latest trademark cases on both sides of the Atlantic shows that some do pursue it :)

In any case I would always advise a client (on either side of the case) to contact their lawyers if they are in doubt about anything. I just try to inform them about what actually happens in Google and other places.

Again, I am not sure exactly how it works in the US but here you have to fight for your right to your trademark. If you let others abuse it (e.g. through search marketing) you can loose your right to that trademark - or, at least have a much more difficult case once you decide to take actions.

A lot of these issue could be so much easier to handle if Google, and the other engines, would just give us better tools to manage these it.

cline

06-15-2004, 02:16 PM

Well, the latest trademark cases on both sides of the Atlantic shows that some do pursue it :)

They're pursuing it because both parties have decided to fight over the issue. My advice was that you simply include the trademark as a negative term, which will prevent your ad from showing up on that trademark, giving Ikano lawyers what they wanted, without accepting any culpability for whether your ads violated their trademark. In theory, Ikano's lawyers could pursue it further, claiming damages from your past ads. It is such a pursuit that is unlikely.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

06-15-2004, 05:19 PM

In most of Northern Europe you would not see damage actions on a thing like this. Our damage laws are very weak and most often end up costing you more than you win. So you only do that for principle reasons here - not for money (one area very different form the US!) :)

I know I can remove the trademarks once I am asked to by the trademark holders. But, I do not have a list of all trademarks - for Denmark specifically that, i think, is actually not possible as you can gain trademark protection on a brand if it's used enough by you - you do not have to register for it, like I think you have to in the US. So, I wouldn't know what names to add setting up a new campaign for a client in another vertical market. And also, I think, its a matter of principles.

What happends (I know, it's purely speculation ...) if one day Ikano (and other violated trademark holders) sue Google for expanding a generic term as "loans" into their registered trademarks? Could they win? If they could, wouldn't it make more sense in the long term for trademark holders to go after the source of the problem: The PPC engines, and fix it once and for all, instead of having to go after each and every advertiser?

I am just curious what you think of the situration. I am not making a statement :)

cline

06-15-2004, 06:02 PM

I wouldn't worry about pre-emptively blocking Adwords from delivering ads on trademarks. That's Google's problem, not yours.

Yes, it ultimately boils down to a matter of principles -- about what the purpose of a trademark is. My personal opinion is that delivering ads as a function of searching on a trademarked term does not violate trademarks, and trying to use trademark law to prohibit such ads is anti-consumerist.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

06-17-2004, 05:21 AM

> and trying to use trademark law to prohibit such ads is anti-consumerist.

I do not agree on that. Trademarks are here to protect consumers from confusion of brands. If consumers look for a certain trademark I do think it's confusing that competing companies from other brands show up.

The funny thing is that Google seems to think so too when it comes to their own brand! (Google is the only trademark you can't bid on :))

cline

06-17-2004, 12:23 PM

Indeed, shame, shame on Google for treating their own trademark differently from how they treat others. A foolish move on Google's part that they should expect Geico's lawyers to exploit.

Mikkel, so you feel that Adwords in general confuses consumers?

Do you feel, for example, that only Ford has the right to advertise repair services for Fords and an independent mechanic should be prohibited from advertising that they repair Fords -- even if they specialize in repairing Fords?

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

06-17-2004, 01:34 PM

No, I do not think AdWords - and other PPCs, are confusing in general but I do think they confuse both the advertisers and the consumers sometimes. In the example I gave to start with I think both is true.

I do not think it's a violation of a trademark if you have an legitimate use of it - there are many such examples: Comparrison charts - or the ford mechanic that you mention. Both valid use of a trademarks, in my oppinion. However, if that Ford specific mechanic suddenly show up on Volvo searches both he and the cosumers might get confused (if we take it that he only fix Ford cars). The consumer think this mechanic advertised on Volvo and the mechanic most likely dosen't even know.

cline

06-17-2004, 03:24 PM

How would you define a "legitimate" use of someone else's trademark for PPC ad targeting?

Would it be legitimate for Progressive Insurance to run ads on the term "Geico"? Progressive is a direct competitor to Geico.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

06-17-2004, 04:20 PM

I can only answer that from a personal point of view - I am not a lawyer or qualified legal advisor in any way :)

No, unless Progressive Insurance have legal content on the website that includes Geico somehow I would not think it's fair use. However, if Progressive Insurance for example draw up a comparison chart, within the limits of local law, where they compare Gaico and Progressive Insurance (maybe against others too) then I would say they have a legitimate use of the key term Gaico marketing that page in PPC-engines.

I am not saying it is easy, and I am not saying I am right :rolleyes:

cline

06-17-2004, 04:42 PM

So what defines "legitimate"?

Are you saying that to legitimately target a term you must have content about the term? So, could Progressive just say "We're a competitor to Geico. Please compare our products with Geico's". Would that make it "legitimate"?

Would it be legitimate for Volkswagen to target "Ford Focus" with an ad for the VW Golf? Or how about targeting that same term with an ad for parts that fit the Focus, but which weren't made by Ford?

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

06-17-2004, 04:57 PM

I think this has more to do with trademark law than PPC-engines and as such there are plenty of legal practise in the field that can be used to judge examples like the ones you mention. Personally, I have no qualifications to make such a judgement.

However, just because something may be difficult to judge it dosen't legitimize any use you want. Trademark laws can be complicated and so can copyright law but it still apply to us all.

So, if we still assume trademark and copyright laws excist and can be inforced in some way, we are back to the core issue: Who is, or should be, responsible for breaking trademark laws if the advertiser is not aware of violating broad matching terms?

AussieWebmaster

06-17-2004, 06:47 PM

The trademark issue differs from country to country. In the US I'd argue that there was no trademark infringement, and I advise my clients to actively bid on trademark terms. In the UK I'd argue there was, and I advise my clients not to bid on trademark terms there. My own opinion is that it shouldn't be considered a trademark infringement.

As a practical matter for your case, I'd recommend responding to the inquiry with a nice reply, blaming the situation on Google, and complying with their request. No one will pursue it further, as the effort isn't worth the expense. Let Geico and Google battle this one out (http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-5215107.html) .

I recently had fx trading try to become a trademarked term or a corporate name etc. They actually pulled it down for 2 days. I explained to them it was way to generic even if they had the doamin name and that I could then set up a domain structured-settlements.com or some such term that I would then tell them to take down for all other references to the term.
Losing in the process all those looking to buy clicks of over $50 each....

It took editorial the two days to see the obvious.... must have been smoking something!!!

If it was to hold true I would have glutted the system with domains and sold exit traffic etc.. and put a little dent in the Google armour.

Alan Perkins

06-30-2004, 08:43 PM

The client is in the banking sector and the campaign is to market loans to private people. One of the keywords used was, naturally, the Danish word “lån” (which means “loan”). One day we get a letter from the lawyer of another loan company here that have the protected trademark “Ikano” and ask why we advertise on his trademark.

It turns out, that Google expand the generic word “loan” into registered trademarks, like Ikano, in this case.

Now, in this case we did off course just add “Ikano” as a negative word but what is next? We do not want to use phrase or exact match for this account as there are so many different searches where “loan” is part of the query. We do off course filter out the most obvious negative keywords (like “free” and all the adult words that always seem to appear, no matter what business you are in!). But, it will be an administrative nightmare if we have to constantly monitor what protected trademark Google will expand to the next time. Not just for “loan” but any generic or specific keyword.
You can switch off expanded matching by using a phrase match. So rather than bidding on lån bid on “lån”. As it's only a single word, you achieve exactly the effect you are looking for.

It's more complex if the broad match consists of more than one word, especially if the multiple words don't always appear together (making phrase matching difficult).

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

07-01-2004, 03:01 AM

I do not agree. Using phrase match does no solve this problem. As I mentioned in my original post there are many phrase variations that we wanted to target that include loan. In Danish (and many other local languages) there are too few searches for each unique phrase to make up for the extra work it takes to set up and manage the extra phrase matched variations.

We could also not have advertised at AdWords at all - that would have solved the problem too, but I do not think that's the issue here. What I find hard to understand is why (besides greed) Google want to expand generic words like loan into specific protected trademarks like Ikano. The core problem too me is that when Google make changes to how they match keywords in this way they put advertisers in a legal situation violating others trademarks - without making any action, whitout knowing and without having the right tools to monitor it.

Alan Perkins

07-01-2004, 06:39 PM

I do not agree. Using phrase match does no solve this problem. As I mentioned in my original post there are many phrase variations that we wanted to target that include loan.
I took your original post to mean that the single word "loan" was being expanded into a trademarked term - not phrases that included the word.

cline

07-06-2004, 11:12 PM

Interesting article about a lawyer who keyword targeted the name of a competing lawyer. (http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2004/07/06ky/A1-lawyer0706-9848.html)

Rnn

08-22-2004, 05:39 PM

With all the expertise at hand at Google and others it would be reasonable that they jointly or independently build a trademark data base from the USPTO.

Although they derive most of their respective incomes from PPC I believe they have spent more on legal fees than they could have made from selling those words.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

08-22-2004, 06:29 PM

There are many things search engines could do. It's not technology that hold them back - I think it's lawyers and the like :)

bragadocchio

08-23-2004, 12:02 AM

With all the expertise at hand at Google and others it would be reasonable that they jointly or independently build a trademark data base from the USPTO.

There's more to trademarks than just the database at the US Patent and Trademark Office. I suspect that Google would have considerable difficulties tracking trademarks. I'll explain why below.

It's not technology that hold them back - I think it's lawyers and the like

Lawyers don't normally hire themselves. :) Rather, it's often businesses protecting their product line or service line who contact the attorneys. Consider what business would be like without trademarks, and without courts and attorneys to protect those.

Keep in mind that trademarks can be registered by the US federal government, or by governments in other countries. Trademarks can be registered on a state level. Trademarks can be based upon common law, and not registered anywhere at all.

The problem isn't necessarily always that Google should track all of the trademarks in the world. It's that, when someone contacts Google telling Google that peson or company's trademark is being used in a manner that will confuse consumers and for a commercial purpose, Google should take action to stop the ad. That may be by contacting the advertiser and giving them notice, and possibly an opportunity to respond. It may be by stopping the ad until the dispute can be remedied in some manner.

One question is whether Google is using the trademark name, in a manner which will confuse consumers for a commercial purpose.

Another question might be whether Google might be contributing to the infringement or dilution of a trademark. Are they? Especially after receiving notification (and possibly a cease and desist letter) from the trademark holder?

I'm sure those are issues that have come up in the pending litigation.

Rnn

08-23-2004, 12:23 AM

I am not suggesting all the trademarks

Keep in mind that trademarks can be registered by the US federal government, or by governments in other countries. Trademarks can be registered on a state level. Trademarks can be based upon common law, and not registered anywhere at all.

Only TM's that are registered with the USPTO

----

when someone contacts Google telling Google that peson or company's trademark is being used in a manner that will confuse consumers and for a commercial purpose, Google should take action to stop the ad

Did you read about the pending cases? :confused:
They were notified, they declined, they want the income and they are the judge and jury as to what is confusion and dilution relating to TM's!

Their lack of response is what brought about the lawsuits.

bragadocchio

08-23-2004, 07:18 AM

Only TM's that are registered with the USPTO

Google operates in more places than just the US. Trademark law applies to many more trade marks and service marks than just the ones registered with the USPTO. Did you have a specific reason why you think all of the others should be excluded? A trademark registered in another state or country, or in use in commerce is just as valid as one registered with the US federal government. Google operates in more places than just the United States.

they are the judge and jury as to what is confusion and dilution relating to TM's!

They may want to be the judge and jury... :)

Their lack of response is what brought about the lawsuits.

Actually one of the American Blind cases was initiated by Google, in an effort to get a declaratory judgment against American Blind.

Rnn

08-23-2004, 08:48 AM

Did you have a specific reason why you think all of the others should be excluded?

No it was just a simple starting point, the TM's registered in the individual states are just to be found on a state-by-state basis. Many states are doing their registrations county by county, which would be thousands of places to lookup and some are not even on accessible data bases. I wouldn't expect any SE to do that.

American Blind cases was initiated by Google

It may appear that way, but ABW was negotiating with Google for almost 15 months and the writing was on the wall that litigation was coming, at that point they were sued and lost in France and in the USA new suits by Mark Nutritionals, Pets Warehouse & JR Cigar.
Numerous journalists were badmouthing the companies behavior and the motion was a response to the bad press in view of the pending IPO.
Moreover at that time Playboy wasn't decided. A company is usually better off as plaintiff than a defendant, hence the Google declaratory motion.
In fact if Playboy had been decided Google would not have tried their Decl motion in the 9th circuit, that case is extremely damaging to their position in the same circuit. Add to that the WhenU decision in NY. :eek:

So it wasn't just to close the door on ABW it was an attempt to close the door on all pending and potential litagation.

Are you aware of Google and Overtures actual defense for selling keywords that are TM's?

bragadocchio

08-23-2004, 09:46 AM

I wouldn't expect any SE to do that.

Thus my belief that it's impossible. Even unregistered trademarks are protected by common law. So, it would be practically impossible for a search engine to maintain a database of trademarks. But it is another matter when a search engine is contacted and informed that there's an existing trademark.

In a very short nutshell, Google's defense is "the sale of keyword-triggered advertising does not constitute trademark infringement."

At least that's their stated defense in the Northern California Declaratory Judgment complaint (http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/Google_v_American_Blind_-_C.pdf) (pdf)

The truth is that it is more complicated that than, and Google did remove ads that were triggered by the full trademarks - as they stated in their complaint. It's some of the "descriptive terms" that American Blind wanted removed that Google refused to stop letting people bid upon.

This Search Engine Watch article goes into some of the differences between Google and Overture, and their treatment of trademarks in advertising:

Search Engines Turning Trademark Law Upside Down (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3354411)

Rnn

08-23-2004, 03:39 PM

That is not correct, both Pets-Warehouse and Geico had made requests and they were not honered.

Just a bit of background of case law

The basis of Google’s application is based on the premise that it is well aware or totally disregards any rights of any trademark holder in the world. Further their use is only in a ‘non-trademark’ way.

The problem with Google's theory is that to date in France and the U.S. at least four Courts have reached different conclusions.

In SDNY 1-800 Contacts Inc. v. WhenU.com 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932 found that very similar infringement constituted a violation of the Lanham Act. The court identified two ways in which WhenU met the "use in commerce" requirements of the Lanham Act.

First, citing to the definition provided in 15 U.S.C. §1127 - that a mark is used in commerce "on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services" - the 1-800 Contacts court noted that WhenU, the subject of the pop-up ads, had caused "advertisements to appear when users have specifically attempted to find or access [1-800 Contact's] website." Id. 15.

Second, the court determined that the inclusion of trademarks belonging to 1-800 Contacts in the Save Now directory "to advertise and publicize companies that are in direct competition with [1-800 Contacts]" amounted to use in commerce. Id.

Also, the leading case directly on point holds that the sale of trademarks by a search engine for use as “sponsored keywords” does constitute actionable “use” of those marks under the Lanham Act.

The court expressly found that “defendants clearly used the marks in commerce,” and that use under the Lanham act “sweeps as broadly as possible.” Playboy Enters Inc v. Netscape, 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).

Courts found the “use” of trademarks as website metatags to divert Internet traffic not as source identifier constitutes “use” of the marks sufficient to give rise to a claim of infringement under the Lanham Act. See, Brookfield Comm. Inc. v. West Coast Enter., 174 F.3d 1036, 1062 (9th Cir. 1999)

Google and the other SE infrigers need to get past those decisions to get to 2nd base. IMHO they have a very big task at hand.

In the Pets-Warehouse case three (3) defendants have settled with plaintiff rather than litagate these issues. A quick of their sites indicate the Pets Warehouse TM is not being sold.

I also just checked Geico and again no one is buying that keyword.

So in sense the plaintiffs are well ahead of the game.

Also are you aware that in the Geico case an amicus brief was filed in support of Geico by Coldwater creek and LL Bean so Google-Overture can look foward to hearing from those companies in the near future.

Another great read is the amicus brief by the International Trademark Assn in support of Playboys appeal.

Ron

bragadocchio

08-23-2004, 07:26 PM

Hi Ron,

It seems I've entered a debate without really realizing it, and I'm behind on points. :)

Caselaw doesn't always translate over easily into small sound bites. I get depressed watching newspapers try to interpret the rulings of courts. But it can be difficult to try to explain the importance of a case or two in a few short words.

I do think that it is important not to lump the approaches of Google and Overture together. They don't have the same philosophies, and I think Overture tends to take a little more reasonable and responsible approach than Google.

I think most people can compare the trademark page from both companies and get a good sense that Overture is doing things differently than Google:

Google Trademark Complaint Procedure (http://www.google.com/tm_complaint.html)

Overture Trademark Procedure (http://www.content.overture.com/d/USm/legal/trademarkinfo.jhtml)

I do think that you are right that Google is behaving as if they can do no harm when it comes to their advertisers using trademarks that belong to someone else.

What I liked about the SEW article I linked to was that it brought out some of the difference in philosophies between the two search engines.

How helpful or informative do you think that the decisions outside of the United States will be in helping US Courts come up with opinions on this subject? I'm guessing those will have very little impact.

I'm a big fan of using primary research materials whenever possible. Sometimes it is helpful to look at a judicial opinion, and sometimes they are written clearly enough to be helpful to people without legal educations.

The opinion on appeal (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8DB030E8186C4EA388256E1A0082DB5E/$file/0056648.pdf?openelement) (pdf) in the Playboy case is pretty accessible to a fairly wide audience.

The other cases you cite are probably something people here should look at too. I'll take a look and see if I can find links to those. I suspect that most of the forum readers don't have subscriptions to lexis/nexis.

Rnn

08-23-2004, 09:01 PM

The SE's don't do what they claim on a complaint in TM infrigement.

If they did there would be no basis for the litagation.

A link to the WhenU case (http://www.steptoe.com/publications/283a.pdf) it's a long one 88 pages but hits the new cases right on point.

Chris_D

08-28-2004, 03:27 AM

Google relies on the "likelihood of consumer confusion" aspect of TM infringement.

Google claims it is the use of the TM in the advertisment text which potentially causes confusion. The use of the TM term to 'trigger' the display of the advertisement doesn't cause any confusion - because no one know what is in the mind of the searcher.

The example I've most often seen used is 'apple'. How can anyone know whether the searcher is looking for a piece of fruit - or a non IBM compatible PC? Any 'confusion' can't be determined until you read the text of the advertisement - so Google argues it is the ad text that potentially creates the TM issue - not the search term itself.

...we will only investigate whether the advertisements at issue are using terms corresponding to the trademarked term in the advertisement's content.

Please note that we will not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint.

http://www.google.com/tm_complaint.html

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't necessarily agree - but it is a coherent arguement.

Rnn

08-28-2004, 10:09 AM

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

08-28-2004, 10:23 AM

If you were Gieco how would you react to an ad that was triggered on that keyword and the ad said "Great rates on Geico insurance" upon clicking you are brought to ABC insurance's web site selling you their coverage.

I think you bring up a very important point: The uniqueness of a given trademark. Some trademarks, like Apple, can be hard to defend, where Geico should be much more easy.

At this point I do not agree with Googles official policy in the US. I think the keyword trigger is a souce of confusion too - not just the copy. The funny fact is, that Google seems to think so too - but only in Europe.

When you type in a very unique brand name, like Nokia, you are asking for information about that brand - not Ericsson. This could be because you want to buy a Nokia, read about Nokia, study the company, seek employment or a ton of other good reasons - but it is most likely not because you want to by an Ericsson cell phone. If Google choose to sell the Nokia keyword to Ericsson sellers I can only find one reason: Profits. They are not serving the users this way. In fact, if such "spammy" listings turned up in the editorial results they would most likely be whiped out (if noticed or reported). Thats another good argument that the keyword trigger does count.

Chris_D

08-28-2004, 10:57 AM

If you were Gieco how would you react to an ad that was triggered on that keyword and the ad said "Great rates on Geico insurance" upon clicking you are brought to ABC insurance's web site selling you their coverage

So - you are saying that:
- Gieco is the trigger word
- Geiko is in the text of the advertisement
- Geiko isn't on the landing page

Then clearly, that's just misleading and deceptive. And Geiko can ask for the TM geiko to be removed from the advertisement text in accord with http://www.google.com/tm_complaint.html

In relation to the landing page, Google can pull the advert based on:

Support Competitive Claims
If your ad text contains comparative language regarding competitors, support for this claim must be displayed on the landing page for your AdWords ad.

Your ad text and keywords must directly relate to the content on the landing page for your ad.
https://adwords.google.com/select/guidelines.html

Rnn

08-28-2004, 06:55 PM

You may believe that at first blush, but in fact as I said before they do not abide by. :rolleyes:

I can tell you as a fact, they don't! :mad:

And while you wait for the Google team to reply, you keep losing biz, and then the advertiser comes back with a new version and another complaint and so and so on. :eek:

If the competitor is persistent they are very hard to stop them finding loop holes to delay and continue infringing ways.

You only have two choices sue the SE or as they wish you to do it is sue the competitor.

Or the best way is to file one suit against both the SE and advertisers as Pets Warehouse has done. :cool:

I think when the court decisions start appearing shortly (I'm guessing in September), if the plaintiffs are successful the (all) SE's will stop. But not until then will they, too many $$$ on the line.

Ron

andrewgoodman

08-30-2004, 10:43 AM

Two points, The cases were commenced before their policy change in their TOS.
The keywords were also used in the ads.

The issues of confusion are complex and can not be argued in a forum too easy when using a word like apple which has several meanings and is somewhat off point.

Can your argument be made with the word gieco?

If you were Gieco how would you react to an ad that was triggered on that keyword and the ad said "Great rates on Geico insurance" upon clicking you are brought to ABC insurance's web site selling you their coverage.

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Hold on, that's a terrible example. The typical example of an ad that triggered on the keyword would be an ad that encouraged you to compare rates, or an ad that was triggered by the keyword but had NO deception in the copy, i.e. it referred to ABC insurance.

In 99% of cases -- like the example I just gave -- there is no consumer confusion because it's ABC in the ad, and ABC on ABC's website once the consumer gets there.

You've provided a hypothetical example where there is real infringement due to the intent to deceive. IMHO your example doesn't reflect the majority of cases here. There is such a thing as fair use.

It might also be fair if you were an insurance broker. Insurance brokers give you great rates on Geico insurance, don't they? Again, there is potentially no problem at all with that ad any more than a grocer or an online retailer like Amazon might say "great prices on XYZ steaks, sealed and shipped overnight."

Where's the beef?