Judge Confused Over Meaning Of Trademark In Geico Case Against Google
from the will-maybe-set-a-precedent dept
This isn't a huge surprise, but the Geico lawsuit against Google and Overture for showing competitors' ads on searches including the term "Geico" is been given the green light to move forward, and wasn't simply tossed out. Apparently, the judge believed Geico that this somehow was trademark infringement. Hopefully, Google and Overture can get a good legal strategy together in time for the actual case. It's been said many times before, but this is not trademark infringement, it's advertising. The point of trademark is to protect your brand against being hijacked by someone else pretending to be you. It's to avoid consumer confusion. It's not, like a patent, designed to keep everyone completely away. As long as the ads in question don't try to trick users into believing that they are Geico, there's no trademark infringement. It's no different than trying to get yourself on the same super market shelf as a more popular brand. You want to be in the same place when someone is looking for your competitor. If anything, Geico should be focusing on specific ads that confuse users into believing that the ads are for Geico instead of a competitor. Speaking of which, Google and Overture should have nothing to do with this case. They're not the ones who created the ads, but are simply the vehicle for delivering them. If Geico has a problem with the ads, they should be suing the advertiser in question. The fact that the judge didn't get these things early on suggests that Google and Overture's legal strategy has not worked properly so far. Considering the potential impact of a loss in this case, they may want to re-evaluate their legal strategy.
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
Google not responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google not responsible?
Service providers are clearly not liable for what their users do on that service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google not responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google not responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google not responsible?
Usually dilution occurs with respect to similar looking designs. This case seems somewhat novel in that Google is using the trademarked name as a computer database identifier that links to sponsored sites that want to be associated with a Geico search.
So clearly, they profit from Geico's name; but the use is in the background...and no one knows that...dilution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google not responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google not responsible?
Plenty of companies "profit" from brand names of other companies. Grocery stores adverts are full of products "on sale" though not necessarily at a reduced price. If a flyer advertises "Coca-Cola" should Coca-Cola sue because the Pepsi products are right beside the Coca-Cola products in the store? No. People know the difference between Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
It has yet to be proven that Google is using a trademarked name as a computer database identifier or as an AdWord. They could simply have a database that identifies GEICO as an insurance company and that when a user types in GEICO, Google pulls up an insurance company/broker. No different from the Yellow Pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The judge is NOT confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The judge is NOT confused
First, it's completely reasonable and legal to put up competing ads if someone searches on Geico -- as long as they're clear that the ads are for a competitor, not Geico.
Second, Google is simply the platform for the ads, and therefore have no liability. They're not the ones (potentially) misusing the Geico trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]