Utah Tries To Ban Keyword Advertising On Trademarked Terms

from the bad-ideas dept

Tue, Apr 3rd 2007 12:04pm — Mike Masnick

For many years, companies have tried suing either Google or various competitors over keyword advertising on their trademarks. Say Coca-Cola decided to buy an ad based on the word "Pepsi." There shouldn't be anything wrong with that. The ads are clearly advertisements, and there's nothing illegal with advertising your product in places where people are looking for info about competitors. Lately, it appears that judges have figured out how to rule properly in these cases -- recognizing that trademarks don't give the holder full control over the trademarked term, but are merely to prevent consumer confusion (i.e., Coca-Cola pretending to be Pepsi). However, it appears that the loser in one of these cases has convinced the Utah legislature that this is a big problem -- and now there's actually a law in Utah that bans the buying of trademarked terms in keyword advertising. Even Utah's own General Counsel warned the legislature that the law was unconstitutional, but they went ahead and approved it anyway. As the EFF notes, it's likely the law will be challenged and thrown out, but it will cost Utah taxpayer money to defend it in court.

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

25 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Black Ize (profile), 3 Apr 2007 @ 1:05pm

Why?
Why does the goverment always thing it knows best? And yet it doesn't understand that for most things you don't need a law!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2007 @ 1:10pm

Out product works with [CENSORED] systems.
So then what happens when someone sells after market parts for someone else's products.

Say you want to buy a universal remote control for your TV/VCR/Sat/Cable system... Are the manufactures in Utah no longer to print advertise these products are for RCA, Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer televisions...etc, using those names as keywords in their advertisements ???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monkey, 3 Apr 2007 @ 1:11pm

Stupid stupid stupid...
Seems all there is in the news lately (at least online) is copyright, trademark or plagiarism winers. It’s starting to really give me a bad taste in my mouth. One day maybe they will do away with all the lobbyist and just make decisions on what’s right and wrong, or at the very least what’s freaken logical. Too bad many politicians see themselves as almost godly and never step out of their perspective when making any kinds of decisions. I'm really sick of all the BS..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Casper, 3 Apr 2007 @ 1:20pm

I'm confused...
These rules are almost never an issue with TV advertising. I hear Hyundai advertising how their car is better then the Toyota and more roomy then the BMW, both of which are trade marked names, but they never have problems with their TV ads. These laws are just getting ridicules. Does that mean Hyundai can't use their advertising campaign in Utah?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2007 @ 1:28pm

Utah
If the law passes I will blow my brains out... They would have to be on drugs to say that this is legitimate. There are 1000's of media outlets that use other "trademark" names in their ads. It would be like saying "you can’t talk about pepsi any more because it’s trademarked". If someone mentions your companies name then its word of mouth.. it can only help!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2007 @ 1:34pm

Is Utah filled mormons or morons?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Larry, 3 Apr 2007 @ 1:36pm

Mormans rule!
Just check out: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/24/mormons.coffee.ap/index.html
Then dontate money to (and vote for) Mitt Romney. Then your conversion to the darkside will be complete.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brad Eleven, 3 Apr 2007 @ 1:54pm

Gee... whose idea was this?
Could it be... A TRADEMARK HOLDER? Or someone beholden to the holder of a trademark?

I'm all for the government representing the interests of its *citizens*. I find it ridiculous that corporations claim the same rights than citizens, while also claiming the right to evade taxation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jon, 3 Apr 2007 @ 2:19pm

This isn't about mormons
C'mon, you mention utah and all the sudden it's the gates of hell opening up...

The mormon church is very protective of their trademarks, and this goes beyond saying something like 'baptists have something mormons do not" that coffee swilling moroni was a trademark infringement and in very poor taste, considering what the statue stands for.

Now on to Mit Romney, not all utahns or even mormon utahns are going to vote for Mit - but the fact that most will just for the heer fact he's mormon makes me cry...no seriously..it does..

Maybe this will get companies to leave utah in droves, or set up offices in other cities, or being in more cases (maybe more money for someone) in getting passed this, but it's beyond even the coffee add, seeing as how that wasn't on the web it was a tee shirt.

But I do remember years ago, that you couldn't say competitors names on TV or Radio, whether or not it was a law or not i don't remember, it may very well have been a mutual respect (I remember it mostly between McDonalds and BurgerKing).

But I want you to remember, there are non-mormon senators and mayors and other officials here, not just mormon ones...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JChan, 3 Apr 2007 @ 2:35pm

We're not all crazy
Please don't think that all Utahns or all Mormons are crazy just because a few overreacted to a situation. While I am not personally offended by the coffee-drinking Moroni, I can see why some are. However, this law is obviously misguided at best. As a Utah Mormon, I hope everyone realizes that not all of us agree with this sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever, 3 Apr 2007 @ 3:00pm

Re: Mormans rule!
Yeah so they protected an icon of their faith. That seems like a pretty clear cut case to me. Registered Trademark belongs to organization then it belongs to them. If I start putting it on T-Shirts and selling it then I am making money of off someone elses property seems pretty fair to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2007 @ 3:06pm

Re: Why?
"Why does the goverment always thing it knows best? And yet it doesn't understand that for most things you don't need a law!"

Uh, you're missing the point. The government knows full well that we don't need laws for most things. The problem is that the government wants to rule over our entire lives, and will apparently rise to just about any level of stupidity to do so. This country was founded with the idea that the people run the government, but that idea is quickly pulling a 180 as we head towards a more socialistic society in which the government brainwashes us into relying on it for everything, and thinking that we're better off for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Truth, 3 Apr 2007 @ 3:07pm

If only if only
If only Missouri had finished the job. I personally think the order that Mormons complain as a curse would have rid us of 99% of the problems in the US. Without Mormons there would be no Mitt, no republicans, no Iraq war, and no Utah. They represent everything that is un American.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thinkerati, 3 Apr 2007 @ 4:30pm

Re: If only if only
"If only Missouri had finished the job. I personally think the order that Mormons complain as a curse would have rid us of 99% of the problems in the US. Without Mormons there would be no Mitt, no republicans, no Iraq war, and no Utah. They represent everything that is un American."

Not only is this whole statement riddled with poor logic, it has no bearing on the original post. The original post is about a bad trademark law, not any religion. A post about foolish state legislators in the State of Utah is not the same thing as a discussion about Mormons. If this had happened in another state (which it easily could have, lobbyists are everywhere), nobody would have started bashing the predominant religion in that state--because that would have been stupid and irrelevant.

And, The Truth, do you really think a church that only constitutes around 2% of the population in the United States is responsible for "99% of the problems in the US"? Frankly, with comments like that (and your mentally unstable statement implying that you wish that all Mormons had been "exterminated" by the State of Missouri in the 1800s) I'm surprised you were even capable of reading the original post about trademarks...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jon, 3 Apr 2007 @ 7:42pm

wow we got way off the subject
hahaha...

the iraq war happened because of the mormons? wow, i don't think i ever saw that coming...

you ought to read up on who's ancestors decided to come to this country because of religious persecution. but i digress...it only happens when the lds church is brought up...

but as the article stated, they don't really think this will make it that far. does anyone know if these tee's were sold on tv or the radio? i'm having a hard time putting the tees together with this law. i tried to guess that it's what initiated this law, but i just don't know if it did - anyone else (from utah) have any idea what brought this about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dissillusioned in Utah, 3 Apr 2007 @ 9:14pm

Par For The Course
This isn't the first time Utah's wasted money passing a law that was clearly unconsitutional, and it's not the only one they have considered this year. Some examples:

HB148 (aka the “abandon a sinking ship incentive program”) would allow parents to spend public money on private school tuition. This despite (or because of) the fact that Utah is dead last in public school funding in the nation.

HB104 Would make all “gambling-like activities” illegal in bars and pubs, even if no actual gambling takes place. Church fund raisers however, would be exempt. This bill sends a clear message, if you want to play cards or bingo in Utah, get ye to the house of god.

HB236 Is aimed at eliminating gay-straight alliance clubs in high schools. It would reject clubs deemed to violate the “moral well-being” of students or that “involve human sexuality”.

HB202 The “Ritalin bill” would make it illegal for teachers to require a student to take “psychotropic” drugs, or remove a child from parental custody for failure to take said drugs. As far as anyone knows, this has never happened, and is already forbidden by school district rules. But that is not enough to satisfy sponsors of the bill that their children will not tied to a desk and forced to drop R, then stolen by the courts to be raised by their god-hating, drug-taking, gay-loving, gambling-addicted, videogame-playing educators.

In 2005, they tried to pass an internet content law that was clearly unconstitutional.

About every other year, they try to pass another abortion bill that they will have to defend all the way to the Supreme Court.

Trust me, the idiocy of the Utah State Legislature knows NO bounds!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jr, 3 Apr 2007 @ 11:29pm

1800 Contacts and Overstock Own The Utah Legislatu
These guys own the state govt in Utah-- that's how stuff like this happens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wifiwaves, 4 Apr 2007 @ 3:25am

It is filled with Mormomorons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2007 @ 7:37am

Re: Re: Mormans rule!
A trademark is not about ownership. It is about brand. A trademark is used to insure the consumer (us little people) are not tricked into buying goods not made by the trademark holder. This does not mean they own the trademark and that no one else can use it in any context. It just means that noone else can use it in a way that promotes their goods as though they are made by the trademark holder. If I'm wrong shoot me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SomePerson, 4 Apr 2007 @ 8:04am

Re:
Is Utah filled (with) mormons or morons?

Those two words mean the same thing. So, take your pick.

Mormon = moron and vice versa. Not surprising to me that the state of UTAH is yet again pulling something like this. They don't seem to think they fall within the rules of the US constitution. I still say they should break away from the 50 states and form their own mormonic (or moronic) country.

I'm so sick of hearing about all this crazy $hit the Mormons are in UTAH are doing. Enough. We are not all perfect and holier than thou like you morons are...please check your religion at the door and don't force it upon the rest of our country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 4 Apr 2007 @ 12:46pm

Re: Re:
Dear SomePerson,
Are BOTH of your parents Darwin Award winners?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Disgusted, 4 Apr 2007 @ 6:06pm

Ew.
Dear Anti-Mormon Ranters:

Stop pulling down Techdirt with your idiocy.

Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Noah Vail, 4 Apr 2007 @ 8:32pm

If only Evangelists were as careful....
of trademark considerations.
Bill Waterson NEVER licensed out Calvin and Hobbes, yet Christian Evangelists pirate his characters by the millions and deny him every cent he's due. Do others? Sure. But Evangelical Christians rip him off far more than everyone else combined.

Yea, Jesus would do that.....

NV
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Utah Senate Site (www.senatesite.com), 6 Apr 2007 @ 5:47pm

Easy Hoss - there IS another side to the story . .
People who own a trademark or hope to own one will love this new law. People who want to carjack someone else's trademark investment will hate it.

Utah is a tech-savvy, business-friendly state. We have a balanced budget and are consistently recognized as being the best financially managed state in the nation. We use more computers per capita than anywhere else in the nation. It’s a nice place to live and a great place to do business.

This trademark law will make it even more so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Utahn, 16 Jul 2014 @ 6:03am

that's Utah
Born and raised in Utah, it still never stops amazing me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]