Register Log in

Law & Disorder / Civilization & Discontents

Google loses on appeal, will face AdWords trademark suit










Expand full story

11 Reader Comments

  1. This raises the question of it's legal for a company which shows ads (Google, a TV/radio station, a newspaper/magazine) to show an ad which uses a trademark without the trademark-owner's consent. Are they liable for what their advertisers say?
    979 posts | registered
  2. this is getting ridiculous, soon you'll be sued for uttering a trademarked name.

    Hay get me a Coke! boom, lawsuit.
    386 posts | registered
  3. quote:
    Originally posted by mmtroute:

    Hay get me a Coke! boom, lawsuit.

    No, the lawsuit woudl only happen if they advertised Coke, but actually served some no-name cola..

    Yes, there are some frivolous lawsuits, but this one makes sense to me: why should company A be able to "buy" searches for company B's name?

    That'd be like Ford ads popping up when the user types "Camaro", just because GM didn't pay Google for "Camaro"..

    I think the "board room" version of Google's famous motto was actually something like: Do no drastic/obvious evil. By all means do gradual/undetectable evil if it makes us $$. Slippery Slope is good!
    786 posts | registered
  4. Wow so that means we cannot bid on product names with a trade mark when using adwords ?
    1 post | registered
  5. I actually think that they might have a pro-consumer competition argument to be made - allowing adwords to trigger competitor product ads may both educate consumers as to availability of alternatives, and may allow comparisons that benefit the consumer. Competition generally is perceived as beneficial to the public. Trademark usually goes to confusion, and promoting competition, provided it's labeled correctly to avoid confusion, is actually a good thing.
    12809 posts | registered
  6. Maybe Google should just add a clause to their contracts which says that they have the right to use the trademark for all search routines. Of maybe Google should just remove Rescuecom completely for their search engine. Find out how they like no one ever hearing from them again.
    3414 posts | registered
  7. The local supermarkets better watch out. I buy Pepsi, they give me a coupon for Coke. Trademark infringement galore, according to these guys...
    960 posts | registered
  8. See, the slippery slope that vw_fan17 mentioned is actually a two-way street. For example, if I entered in "Camero" looking for a local GM dealer to buy a Camero from, then I'd be unlikely to care if Ford links are returned under the "Sponsored Links" section. Therefore, GM getting their panties in a tizzy would be kind of pointless. However, if I entered in "Camreo" because we all make mistakes, and then GM didn't return at all in the results because it only links to knock-off and spam sites that capitalized on all possible misspellings of "camero", then GM potentially loses a sale because they were not allowed to buy the same advertising possibilities.

    So really, it seems to me that one must take the good with the bad. If people goof and misspell something, then chances are their trademarked product will return in the results, the sponsored section, or in a suggestions link. If they don't goof, and a competitor's brand comes up under the clearly-labeled and shaded "Sponsored Links" section, then it's unlikely anyone but the strongest of fools or uninitiated Internet users would ever confuse the links there with the actual results they searched for.

    The EFF does have a valid point in the consumer information/criticism results that return there as well. A brand shouldn't have the right to stifle critics of their products/services simply because they get this precedent set of Google not being able to capitalize on a trademark search.
    1525 posts | registered
  9. Actually, while we are certainly concerned that critics could be exposed to trademark infringement liability for "buying" a trademark as an AdWord, we're more troubled by the possibility that Google, facing spiraling litigation costs, will simply not allow anyone to purchase trademarks (at least if the TM owner objects -- see, e.g., Yahoo's policy).

    If that were to happen, everyone with a legitimate reason to reach an audience interested in information regarding a major brand would lose this opportunity. That's the problem with a rule that chills an intermediary like Google -- if Google pulls the plug, everyone loses, even if they would otherwise not be sued.

    Fred von Lohmann
    EFF Senior Staff Attorney
    3 posts | registered
  10. Fred,

    I don't agree. Here is Google's solution, and they need to do this fast to limit lawsuits:

    1- Ads designating non trademark owner:
    Just like google currently has "affiliates" designate themselves as such in ads, before allowing an ad to be posted. Folks using a trademark keyword can designate themselves as a "non-trademark holder" in the ad. And never be at the top position when the trademark holder is also using adwords.

    2- Badges
    Google uses badges in adwords to show folks that an advertiser uses google checkout. The same can be done for trademark owners. Badges stating trademark owner status can be created to let people know who is the trademark owner of the keyword just searched for.

    3- A combination of the above, or let international rules pervade. Google international can block trademarks as keywords. It is only in the USA Canada, and Ireland that this problem regarding using trademarks as keywords exists.

    There is no reason that google cannot change a bit, and stop these lawsuits flat.

    It appears that they want to continue spending money on lawyers rather than finding a good solution for everyone.

    1 post | registered
  11. We'll see what happens when I buy into Adwords with two websites, one, hooked to "Google" returning an ad for "Yahoo" (or some other ASE); and another hooked to "Google" and returning a snippet ad "What a joke! They do evil"
    1406 posts | registered

You must to comment.

Need to register for a new account?

If you don't have an account yet it's free and easy.