Winner Take All Outsourcing: Netflix Will Pay $1 Million To Whoever Improves Their Recommendation Engine

Another Judge Says There's No Trademark Violation In Selling Ads On Trademarked Keywords

from the understanding-trademark-law dept

Fri, Sep 29th 2006 7:48pm — Mike Masnick

It seems that companies never stop suing over this particular issue. Despite numerous cases before it, including from Geico and American Blinds, yet another company has sued Google because the company's competitors bought ads on the keyword of their company name, Rescuecom. Of course, this should not be a violation of trademark law. Trademark law is mostly about avoiding confusion for the sake of consumer protection. It's not about giving the trademark owner full rights over the trademark (similar to copyrights or patents). There is also the secondary issue, over whether this is even a Google issue. If it were a trademark violation, then it should be on the company who bought the ad, not Google, who is simply acting as the platform.

The good news is that in this case, the judge has come out and said clearly that there is no trademark violation in selling ads on trademarked keywords. Unlike in some of the other cases, the judge didn't punt on the issue and very clearly said there is no trademark issue here. Of course, Rescuecom is not happy with the decision and will probably appeal. It has made a statement on the matter that is worth quoting just for the level of hyperbole: "A dangerous precedent has been set that allows a behemoth to pit smaller competitors against one another, while it rakes in the additional revenue. The immense power enjoyed by Google will be compounded by this ugly tactic as advertisers clamor to reach critical online audiences. Rescuecom will not be the last company hurt by this scheme." Of course, much of that statement is wrong. This really is no different than earlier cases, and it is consistent with the purpose of trademark law. It has nothing to do with allowing a behemoth to do anything, and whether or not Google makes money has no real bearing on whether it's a problem for Rescuecom. Furthermore, it's not clear how Rescuecom is "hurt" by this. If it's true that they're hurt by someone else's ad, then it would seem that any competitor's advertisement is hurting them as well -- but last we checked, advertising against your competitors is perfectly legal. Update: Lawyer Eric Goldman has a great summary of the details in the decision. As noted here, unlike previous cases, this judge didn't punt on the issue, but clearly said that search engines selling ads on trademarks are not violating trademark law. However, the News.com article was a little confusing, and may have missed the bigger point. In this case, the judge was more focused on that "second" issue I described above: Google's liability. That's what the decision was based on, saying that a search engine selling keywords is not "using the trademark in commerce" and therefore there's no misuse. So, the decision is a big deal, because it highlights that search engines selling ads on trademarks are not actually using the mark in commerce, and therefore, not liable for its misuse (though, the advertisers who buy the ads still could be, depending on how it's used). Update 2: It turns out that the company thought this lawsuit would make for a good publicity stunt. Nice of them to abuse the legal systems for the sake of PR.

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

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ulle, 29 Sep 2006 @ 9:56pm

trademarks
sooooo, your company is not making money liked you thought it would,,, what to do,,, heck sue someone like google after all it can not be your companys fault it is doing terrible, it has to someone elses fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve E, 30 Sep 2006 @ 3:19am

This has confused me a little. I thought Google didn't allow anyone but the trademark owners to bid on brand terms (company names etc).

Does this mean if I owned an online store selling holidays I could bid on the keyword Expedia on Adwords or not??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me, 30 Sep 2006 @ 3:27am

Bummer
I use adwords , and at some point I wanted to promote an Ipod related product , and in order to describe the product , I could not use the word Ipod .
I just couldn't use the word , in any context . Google forbids using the term Ipod for describing related products ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimmy Bear Pearson, 30 Sep 2006 @ 6:17am

Re: Steve
IANAL, but yes, that seems to be the idea behind the judgement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott Lawton, 30 Sep 2006 @ 9:18am

the issue seems more complex
I'm NOT an expert on this issue, and at first glance I'm in favor of allowing ads against TMs (pending a definitive legal analysis). But, a bit of research suggests that you may not be reporting the past cases accurately. For example, the Tech & Law blog says "based on the four on-point precedents that all went against search engines, I would have predicted a Google loss", Read the whole post at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm -- there are further interesting details. I don't know whether Goldman is correct, but he seems like a credible source. (The usual disclaimers: I don't know him, am not involved in the case, etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 30 Sep 2006 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: the issue seems more complex
  I'm NOT an expert on this issue, and at first glance I'm in favor of allowing ads against TMs (pending a definitive legal analysis). But, a bit of research suggests that you may not be reporting the past cases accurately.
  
  Scott, that's a good link (and I've added it to the story above). I think part of the confusion was in the way that the News.com article reports the story, so I apologize. However, I don't think it really disagrees with what I'm saying -- though perhaps to a degree it does. It's true that in the previous cases the judges basically punted on the liability issue -- so I'm not sure it was that obvious that a judge would side against Google. However, what the Goldman post does do is show that the case was focused more on the overall liability of search engines, rather than the question of confusion -- and that's a useful precedent to set.
  
  I do think that this decision is very much in line with how trademark law is supposed to be used, however.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan, 30 Sep 2006 @ 12:34pm

How is this still a good thing?

My company for example.. if you type in our URL.. 3 ads show up above it with the title of nothing but our URL..

when you go to the site, they again use our terms on teh site.

As a visitor, I'd actually believe that the other site is our URL....

If I opened up a resaturant in the real world, and called it McDonalds... and advertised it as McDonalds, I'd be sued.

How come I'm not liable online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 30 Sep 2006 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re:
  My company for example.. if you type in our URL.. 3 ads show up above it with the title of nothing but our URL..
  
  when you go to the site, they again use our terms on teh site.
  
  That's a different situation. If the ads are confusing, then it is a trademark violation... but only for those taking out the ads.
  
  You have to separate out a few issues. Is it a violation to simply advertise when people are looking for your competitors? No.
  
  Is it a violation to make ads that will confuse people into believing your site is a competitor's? Yes.
  
  Is it Google's fault if someone makes an ad that will confuse people into believing your site is a competitor's? No.
  
  So, in your case, there was confusion, so the company who took out the ad is probably violating your trademark (assuming you have a trademark on it). However, Google is not violating it. At the same time, if someone had an ad that wasn't confusing people, but simply pointed to the competition, that's perfectly legal. It's called competing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jo Mamma, 1 Oct 2006 @ 1:16am

A bit off topic, but...
You know, reading this article reminded me of the now age old struggle between nissan motors and nissan computer.

Basically, this (presumably) small business person with the last name of Nissan registered nissan.com in the early 90's (very smart)... and when Nissan motors finally woke up to the dot.com era, they decided to try and force him out of business by suing him for the domain name... and they've been suing him ever since (can you say evil?). I can't believe this guy has the resources to go against a major corporate legal offensive for this long.

I saw this years ago and marveled at how badly this Nissan guy is getting screwed by Nissan motors... and they're still trying to get the domain name from him! Amazing.

Well, ok I guess this was totally offtopic, but checkout nissan.com... I find it interesting. And I wish him the best of luck. Hopefully, he'll have his legal fees returned and maybe even end up selling the name when he retires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- biotunnel, 1 Oct 2006 @ 6:38am
  
  Re: A bit off topic, but...
  big companies have resources ... they have hired legal companies to fight each case with you ... it is not hard for them to battle with some guyfor 10 years ... Nissan Motors will probably never stop ...(until they really get the domain)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skeptical, 1 Oct 2006 @ 11:08am

Hard to believe
I don't see what the problem is here.
If a company is afraid of competetion then they are in the wrong buisness... maybe people should rely more on service and quality rather than suing everyone else that is (possibly) better than them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rcanderson, 1 Oct 2006 @ 4:04pm

stupid area 51
Auroa is just the beginning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
craig, 1 Oct 2006 @ 9:59pm

If I opened up a resaturant in the real world, and called it McDonalds... and advertised it as McDonalds, I'd be sued.

This is not the same thing. This is more like opening a restaurant called "Rusty's Burger Bin."
You then bid on the adword for McDonald's, and win, so now when someone types McDonald's into Google, up comes your ad which says "Come to Rusty's Burger Bin - We Bet You'll Love Our Burgers Better!"

Not a trademark violation. And no way does Mcdonald's owning a trademark on its name mean that Google has to prevent any competitor's site coming up in its search results, even if they are paid ad search results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Iler, 2 Oct 2006 @ 12:52am

Hell - I'll start a company suing other companies!
Do I have any investors? I think this is going to do it. Oh, dammit! I forgot to get a patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RantMax, 2 Oct 2006 @ 6:27am

Jesus f... Christ!!!
Mike, dude, damn it.. !

"Trademark law is mostly about avoiding confusion for the sake of consumer protection. It's not about giving the trademark owner full rights over the trademark (similar to copyrights or patents)."

Aren't you sick in pasting this in EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE even remotely related to trademarks in some way?

We get it, all right? I lose actual brain cells when I see you repeat the same 4-5 phrases in every post of yours.

And I do *NOT* want to lose brain cells. Who would want to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Khaliq Musa Hadji, 10 Oct 2007 @ 10:22am

fs: Apple Iphone 4GB.....$250, Sony Ericsson P1...
KHALIQ PHONES INC.
We are specialised in all brand new mobile phones like Samsung , Nokia , Qtek , Imate , Palm Treo , Sony Ericsson , Sidekick , Nextel and many more, They are cheap and unlocked with 12 month international warranty.We sell them in Bulk and in Retails ,We shipped inconjunction with fedEx Express, they shipped within 48hrs to your door step. It is a Buy two and get one for free.

if interested contact : khaliq900@inmail24.com

Apple Iphone 4GB.....$250USD
Apple Iphone 8GB.....$350USD

PRICELIST FOR NOKIA PHONES IN STOCK :
Nokia 6125 Bluetooth Quadband Unlocked GSM Phone....$150
Nokia 6136 Bluetooth Quadband Unlocked GSM Phone....$160
Nokia 6265i Unlocked GSM Cell Phone.....$140
Nokia 6282 Unlocked GSM Smartphone......$170
Nokia 8800 GSM Unlocked GSM 900/1800/1900 World Phone.....$175
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet Support.....$165
Nokia 8801 GSM Unlocked GSM 850/1800/1900.....$180
Nokia E51 QuadBand Unlocked GSM Phone......$160
Nokia E61 Smartphone Unlocked GSM Phone......$200
Nokia E70 Unlocked GSM Smartphone.....$150
Nokia N70 Unlocked GSM Smartphone.....$155
Nokia N71 Unlocked GSM Smartphone.....$165
Nokia N72 Unlocked GSM Phone Black....$175
Nokia N81 8GB Quadband Unlocked GSM Smartphone Black.....$200
Nokia 7900 Prism Unlocked GSM....$190
Nokia N91 GSM Unlocked Phone.....$200
Nokia N92 Unlocked GSM Smartphone....$220
Nokia N93 Unlocked GSM Phone.....$220
Nokia N93i Unlocked GSM Phone...$270
Nokia N95 8GB Unlocked GSM Phone.....$300
Nokia N75 Unlocked GSM Phones....$350
Nokia 8800 Sirocco Edition ..$230

PRICELIST FOR IMATE PHONES IN STOCK :
I-Mate JAM 128MB Unlocked GSM Phone....$190
I-Mate JAM GSM/GPRS Pocket PC Unlocked Phone....$180
I-Mate JAMin GSM/GPRS Pocket PC Unlocked Quadband Phone....$200
I-Mate JASJAR Quadband GSM Unlocked PDA Smartphone.....$300
I-Mate K-Jam Quad Band Unlocked GSM Smartphone.....$210
I-Mate Smartflip Unlocked Quadband Smartphone.....$220
I-Mate SP5 Unlocked GSM Smartphone.....$130
I-Mate SP5m Unlocked GSM Smartphone....$120

PRICELIST FOR MOTOROLA PHONES IN STOCK :
Motorola Mpx 300...........USD$300
Motorola A1200 Unlocked Quadband Phone Black.....$170
Motorola A910 Unlocked GSM Phone.....$130
Motorola E1070 Unlocked GSM Phone.....$135
Motorola L2 Candybar RAZR Unlocked GSM Phone....$110
Motorola Q Unlocked GSM Phone.....$230
Motorola Rokr E2 Unlocked GSM Triband Phone w/iTunes....$190
Motorola V1050 Quad Band Unlocked GSM Phone.....$145
Motorola V195 Unlocked GSM Phone.....$135
Motorola V3 (Gold) Edition Unlocked GSM Phone....$130
Motorola V3c RAZR for Verizon.....$135
Motorola V3i Dolce & Gabbana Unlocked Quadband GSM Phone.....$165
MOTOROLA V3x (PINK) Unlocked GSM Phone w/128 MB Card.....$140
Motorola W220 GSM Unlocked Cell Phone.....$180
Motorola Razr Maxx V6 Unlocked Cell Phone.....$220

PRICELIST FOR SAMSUNG PHONES :
Samsung P920 Unlocked GSM Cell Phone......$245
Samsung I830 Smartphone Unlocked GSM Cell Phone....$220
Samsung Serene SGH-E910 Unlocked GSM Phone.....$300
Samsung S401i Unlocked Triband GSM Cell Phone....$180
Samsung D870 Unlocked GSM Phone.....$200
Samsung Z710 Unlocked GSM Mobile Cell Phone....$230
Samsung p900 unlocked GSM Cell phone......$255
Samsung p860 unlocked GSM Cell phone......$235

AK Phones:
AK Mobile AK-Mini....$160
AK Mobile AK-S1....$170
AK Mobile AK900.....$220
AK Mobile DV2...$230

O2 XdPhones
O2 Xda Atom.............USD$300
O2 Xda Atom Exec...USD$310
O2 Xda Stealth..........USD$320

GIGABYTE Phones:
GIGABYTE G-Smart i350...USD$350
GIGABYTE Doraemon....USD$300
GIGABYTE g-Cam.......USD$180
GIGABYTE Keroro......USD$210
GIGABYTE Snoopy......USD$215

Linx Phones:
Linx M1168......USD$170
Linx M2688........USD$175

PRICELIST FOR SONY ERICSSON PHONES :
Sony Ericsson K310 Unlocked GSM Phone....$125
Sony Ericsson K510 Unlocked GSM PhonE....$135
Sony Ericsson K610 Unlocked GSM Phone....$145
Sony Ericsson K790 Unlocked GSM Phone....$180
Sony Ericsson K800 Unlocked GSM Phone....$170
Sony Ericsson M600 Unlocked GSM Phone....$155
Sony Ericsson P990i GSM Unlocked.........$330
Sony Ericsson W700i Unlocked GSM Phone...$130
Sony Ericsson W810 MP3 Quadband GSM Unlocked Phone....$135
Sony Ericsson W850 GSM Unlocked Cell Phone.....$220
Sony Ericsson W900i Unlocked GSM Phone.....$230
Sony Ericsson W950 Unlocked GSM Phone.....$240
Sony Ericsson Z710 Quadband GSM Unlocked Cell Phone.....$240
Sony Ericsson p910i unlocked GSM phone.....$165
Sony Ericsson P1 unlocked GSM phone.........$250

PRICELIST FOR PALM TREO PHONES :
Handsping Treo 650 GSM Quadband Unlocked Smartphone PDA....$120
Handsping Treo 700w GSM unlocked phone .....$140

PRICELIST FOR SIDEKICKS:
Sidekick ID......$140
Sidekick 3......$140

PRICELIST FOR NEXTEL
Nextel i930..$140
Nextel i830...$120

PRICELIST FOR QTEK PHONES :
Qtek 8100 Tri-Band Camera Music Unlocked GSM Phone White.....$110
QTEK 8300 GSM MOBILE SMARTPHONE.....$120
Qtek 8310 Unlocked Quadband GSM Phone....$130
Qtek 8500 Unlocked SmartPhone.....$125
Qtek 8600 Unlocked GSM SmartPhone....$200
Qtek 9000 3G Pocket PC Unlocked GSM Phone.....$250
Qtek 9100 Smartphone / Pocket PC Unlocked GSM Phone....$150
Qtek 9600 Unlocked GSM SmartPhone.....$250
Qtek G100 GPS PPC and Pharos Ostia GPS Software(US Maps)....$155
QTEK S200 GSM/GPRS Pocket PC Unlocked Quadband Phone.....$165

Apple MacBook Pro Intel Core Duo 1.83 GHz 15.4" Display Macintosh Notebook..$550
Apple MacBook Pro Intel Core Duo 2 GHz ( Dual-Core ) 15.4" Display....$560
Apple PowerBook G4 Motorola PowerPC G4 1 GHz 17" Display Macintosh Notebook..$350
Apple PowerBook G4 PowerPC G4 1.33 GHz 17" Display Macintosh Notebook..$400
Apple PowerBook G4 PowerPC G4 1.67 GHz 17" Display Macintosh Notebook...$530
Apple PowerBook G4 PowerPC G4 1.67 GHz 15.2" Display Macintosh Notebook...$500
Apple Pro 15 Intel Core Duo 2.16GHz 15.4" Display Macintosh Notebook...$600
Apple Pro Intel Core 2 Duo T7600 2.33GHz Macintosh Notebook.....$640

If interested contact : khaliq900@inmail24.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mahmoud braim, 26 Mar 2010 @ 5:31am

lobying
is there a lobbying force for the common citezens to affect & interfer in the future of telecommunications and whatever results from semiconductor technology & other technology?

Mind you theis idea and endevour could acquire amounts of money for whoever initiate and continue especily in democracy environement

if this is bullshit, at least explain such issues in every language
[ link to this | view in chronology ]