Now Google Getting Sued For Blocking Trademarked Terms
from the getting-ridiculous dept
A few months back, France fined Google for selling ads based on trademarked terms. I was surprised, because in my own experiments with Google ads, I've had a few ads that were rejected because they (according to Google) contained trademarked terms. Personally, I don't see how buying a keyword is, in any way, a violation of trademark. The point of a trademark is to protect the company from having someone else appear to be you. You can't sell Bob's Cola and put a Coca-Cola label on it. However, if someone is looking for Coca-Cola, there's nothing wrong with suggesting they might also want to look at Bob's Cola, as well. Anyway, now it looks like Google may get hit from the other side as well. They've been fined for selling ads based on trademarks, and now, apparently, they're going to get sued for blocking ads based on trademark complaints. The pending lawsuit apparently says that Google is banning ads on terms that aren't trademarked as soon as anyone complains. That is, Google doesn't check to see if there's an actual trademark - they just ban the ad as soon as there's a complaint. The group that's going to sue says they've brought together over 3,000 complaining advertisers who have had ads blocked. As mentioned, I've had my ads blocked too, but this seems like a ridiculous lawsuit. Where in the law does it say that Google has to sell you ads for whatever you want? They have the right to reject ads for whatever reason they want. It is their system, after all. If people believe they're blocking ads unfairly, then isn't that an opening for competitors to better serve advertisers by offering them something that Google doesn't?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is it in their EULA?
Just curious because I still see restaurants, theaters, etc. with disclaimers posted that they (the management) reserve the right to not serve anyone at their discretion. I always thought that was kind of a given, so why post it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps not.
Not if they have a 'natural monopoly'. The case in the early days of the railroad (don't remember the case name) but it was about how a railroad owned the 'best' place to cross a river and had bouhgt up land at other 'good' locations, thus forcing other railroads to undergo big expenses to cross said river. The result was if you held a natural monopoly that excludes others, you must allow access. But I'm sure someone else will post the exact details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps not.
True, although access is a very nuanced area of law. I don't think any sane person could argue that Google is a monopoly with a straight face, though. They have literaly hundreds of competitors, at least one of them a massive convicted monopolist itself. And switching costs are so cheap... Google is actually in a fairly precarious position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps not.
Sure. A cheesy clip show of TV programs where someone says "did you google that" "Google him yet?" or any of the other useage of Google as a verb.
An uphill climb, but a jury might go for the 'Google is a monopoly' idea, depending on how often they use it themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps not.
Yes. And if they were blocking the recording or playback of content....they could get sued.
The biggest 'bitch' about TIVO is consumers skip ads, and so far the advertisers havn't figured out HOW to file a suit that has a chance of sticking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps not.
So just because a company has a name monopoly, they can be sued like they have a monopoly? Last I checked, TiVo wasn't even the biggest DVR company out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps not.
Proof please. Show the TIVO %age of market by the numbers of DVR's deployed.
According to the data I've seen, TIVO has the majority of the market. Thus far TIVO hasn't been 'made into a verb' like Google, I have yet to hear of TV shows saying 'Did you TIVO CSI?'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps not.
http://www.connectedhomemag.com/HomeTheater/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=40900
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I don't think so, at least not in the U.S. For excample, that would include the race and gender of the advertiser as reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh well...
"So much for trying to take the safe path.. Gee can we get sued for breathing?"
If the breathing is "heavy", the answer is probably yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GEICO v Google
"Personally, I don't see how buying a keyword is, in any way, a violation of trademark. The point of a trademark is to protect the company from having someone else appear to be you. You can't sell Bob's Cola and put a Coca-Cola label on it. However, if someone is looking for Coca-Cola, there's nothing wrong with suggesting they might also want to look at Bob's Cola, as well."
If you go to a restaurant and order a "Coke" and the watiress brings you a glass filled with Pepsi or some other cola without informing you at the time you placed your order that the restaurant does not have "Coke" but carries a different brand, then that restaurant has infringed on Coca Cola's trademark.
Why should Google be treated differently? If you "Google" "GEICO" and the results page is filled with links other than or in addition to GEICO's links because those links had "GEICO" embedded in their ads or pages, then GEICO's trademark has been infringed. The advertiser has used GEICO's name in order to drive the customer to that advertiser's site rather than GEICO's site.
It becomes a question of who has the responsibility for the content that appears on Google's results page; The advertiser or Google.
If you are a newspaper publisher and someone buys an ad or writes a letter to the editor that contains libelous material that you then publish, YOU, the publisher, are guilty of libel because you have control over what you publish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]