'Push Ringtones' Establish A Whole New Level Of Pointlessness

American Blinds Buying Ads On Others' Trademarks

from the oops dept

Mon, Apr 23rd 2007 12:23am — Mike Masnick

Last week, we wrote about the ongoing case of American Blinds suing Google because competitors had bought keyword ads based on their trademark "American Blinds." We pointed out why this should be allowed, but Nathania Johnson writes in to point out something quite interesting. As American Blinds is suing over others buying keyword ads on its trademark, it appears to be buying keyword ads on the trademarks of its own competitors. If you do a search on various competitors' names on Google, text ads for American Blinds appears pretty high up the list. So, if it wins its case, does that just open it up to lawsuits from its competitors for doing exactly what it's suing over?

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

9 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Bad Spelling Gooru, 23 Apr 2007 @ 1:02am

He's confused
They're advertising on the word 'blinds', the search [National Blinds] contains the word 'blinds' so their name appears. They're not advertising on the trademark 'National Blinds' so this is not an case-closed situation.

That said:
Trademarks are labels, they are associated with particular goods or services. You are restricted from using that trademark in connection with that good or service.
IT DOES NOT REMOVE THE WORDS OR PHRASE FROM THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The advert is not the good or service. It is no different from telling a magazine to give me a good slot next to a 'Dell' advert. The position of the advert next to the Dell advert is not using the 'Dell trademark'.

1. It is no different from buying ad space opposite a 'Pepsi' sponsored event. The Olympics gets special laws to prevent this, the fact they need special laws, tells you that the normal law defines buying adverts next to competitors products/goods/events/services ok.

2. There are multiple uses for words:
'Get your seeing eye dogs with National Delivery' on the words American Blinds for example, and I should be able to buy any other advert.

3. There are multiple jurisdictions for words which can have different owners:
'Compra American Blinds desde Todos-cosas-Americano'

4. There's no deception, the ads are clearly labelled 'ads by Google'.

5. Googles search algorithm is not a measure of 'how close to a trademark a site is' they are not obliged to even show 'AmericanBlinds.com' in the search results, and the courts have upheld that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ReallyEvilCanine, 23 Apr 2007 @ 1:27am

Google must win this case
Their lawyers need to hammer one point over and over and over again until the judge and jury are moving their lips each time a Google lawyer says, "Trademarks exist not to protect owners' names and phrases but to protect the public from fraud. Trademarks are not copyrights."

The fact that this suit wasn't summarily thrown out shows that there's already gross confusion about what trademark and copyright are. A stupid decision in this suit could set a disastrous precedent. If a trademark is seen as a form of copyright then any company could stifle any negative commentary by filing SLAPP suits claiming use violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 23 Apr 2007 @ 6:21am

The very worst thing that ever happened to the internet was the corporate and legal world discovering it.

They can F up a wet dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 23 Apr 2007 @ 6:25am

how is this still alive?
The fact that this case sticks around and wastes tax payers' money is a sure sign that our legal system is off track.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nathania Johnson, 23 Apr 2007 @ 7:39am

It doesn't appear that bidding for just "blinds" will get you on the page for "national blinds." Type in other searches using the word "blinds" and you'll see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Scillitani, 23 Apr 2007 @ 7:39am

Broad Match?
"hey're advertising on the word 'blinds', the search [National Blinds] contains the word 'blinds' so their name appears. They're not advertising on the trademark 'National Blinds' so this is not an case-closed situation."

I disagree. If you read the 3rd comment, it states "I also want to add, it does not appear they have the term "blinds" on broad match. If you search for "best blinds" or "just blinds" american blinds ads do not appear. "

Yes they can have companies as negative match, but if they went that far and are suing, they better add it as exact match and that is it. I also highly doubt they are not bidding on "bali blinds" (#1 position) which is a trademarked name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2007 @ 1:13pm

A country name and generic product term should not be trademarkeable in the first place.

Take 'Kenyan Drapes' or 'Australian Lamps', it's a location and a generic product name, how does this qualify for protection in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youreallwrong, 12 May 2007 @ 5:13pm

They are too pirating the trademarks
The "adjacent" ad analogy is a red herring, or really just a dead fish. The advertisers are not placing their ads adjacent to National Blinds ads. They are pirating the trademark National Blinds to lead customers to their own sites. A better analogy would be if someone not associated with Best Buy built a store with a Best Buy sign on the store, and when customers got inside they found out it was not a Best Buy but they bought their electronics products there because they were there and the price was decent. True, they weren't deceived in the purchase the strict sents because it was revealed inside the store that it was not really a Best Buy. Still, the owner pirated the name Best Buy to get the customers into the store. This is precisely what the trademark advertisers are doing on Google. Google directly promotes and profits this way of doing business. Strict legal analysis aside, it's a morally bankrupt way of doing business both for Google and the advertisers. If it's not illegal, it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youreallwrong, 12 May 2007 @ 5:13pm

They are too pirating the trademarks
The "adjacent" ad analogy is a red herring, or really just a dead fish. The advertisers are not placing their ads adjacent to National Blinds ads. They are pirating the trademark National Blinds to lead customers to their own sites. A better analogy would be if someone not associated with Best Buy built a store with a Best Buy sign on the store, and when customers got inside they found out it was not a Best Buy but they bought their electronics products there because they were there and the price was decent. True, they weren't deceived in the purchase the strict sents because it was revealed inside the store that it was not really a Best Buy. Still, the owner pirated the name Best Buy to get the customers into the store. This is precisely what the trademark advertisers are doing on Google. Google directly promotes and profits this way of doing business. Strict legal analysis aside, it's a morally bankrupt way of doing business both for Google and the advertisers. If it's not illegal, it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]