Overture, Geico Guarantee Many More PPC Trademark Lawsuits
from the not-a-good-precedent dept
It's been pointed out, repeatedly, that selling text ads based on trademarked keywords is not trademark infringement. There's no confusion over brand, which is what trademark law is designed to prevent. Instead, it's simply companies trying to get listed alongside their competition, which is a standard marketing move (why are no-name brand colas on shelves in supermarkets next to Coke and Pepsi?). However, companies like Geico have been suing Google and Yahoo for selling text ads based on their trademark. While Google's case is ongoing, Yahoo's Overture division decided to settle today. This might mean that they didn't think they would win, but it sets a bad example. While ads are apparently still showing on Overture for Geico competitors, Geico clearly got something out of Overture to allow the practice to go on. What this means, is that every company that has competitors buying ads on trademarked terms will now be calling Overture, asking for their "settlement."
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
Trademark Infringement Or Not?
First, regarding a no-name soft drink being positioned next to Coke and Pepsi, does the manufacturer really control that? I suspect the store controls that because they want all soft drinks located in a common area to make them easier to find.
I realize that stores also charge premiums for some placement (end caps, for example), but I doubt the no-name manufacturers are specifically asking to be placed next to Coke or Pepsi.
Second, where do you draw the line where it's OK to buy something based on a competitor's name? It seems clearly wrong for Pepsi to buy www.coke.com, even if visiting the page reveals it's clearly a Pepsi page and makes no reference to Coke. Are terms in a search engine that different? I could argue the case that search engine terms are almost as much a part of your online identity as your domain name.
On another aspect, it would be interesting to see what would happen if a company seeded their Web pages with numerous references to a competitor in order to increase their page rank when users searched for the competitor ("75% of users prefer Pepsi to Coke", "Pepsi has 10% less caffeine than Coke", etc.). Would that be an unfair competitive tactic?
Probably not, but would the search engine have any culpability if a search for Coke brought up a Pepsi page first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark Infringement Or Not?
Placement isn't only purchased on the end caps, but companies bid for places on shelves at eye-level and to specifically fill up an entire shelf (at eye-level I suppose) to themselves forcing other brands to another shelf less in sight.
So it doesn't surprise me that some brands might request (and pay) to get placed relative to other brands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark Infringement Or Not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]