Once Again, Google Sued Over Use Of Trademarks In Ads
from the geico-2.0 dept
Reader Mark alerts us that once again, Google is getting sued because it allow companies to buy ads that use another company's trademark. In the US, it's pretty much settled law that there's nothing wrong with this. Geico tried suing the company over this, but it had its case slapped down by the courts. This time, it's the Australian government upset that a popular Australian classifieds site is using the name of certain car dealerships in its ads. Of course, the Geico case doesn't set any precedent for Google in Australia, so it's possible that the law won't be as favorable to the company down under. The government is also making the somewhat bizarre claim that Google doesn't do a good job distinguishing its paid results from its organic listings. It's pretty hard to see how anyone but a moron in a hurry would have a hard time seeing the difference, so it would certainly seem that Australia has an uphill battle going forward on this one.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Personally, I think they do a pretty good job, but I wish they'd confine sponsored links to the sidebar instead of placing them above search results as well. Not because they're difficult to distinguish, but because screen real estate is valuable: with the current layout I can only see the top three or four results before I have to scroll down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Random mostly sarcastic comment (the 2 lines above) aside, people need to stop suing over the littlest things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Opinion is:
As for this lawsuit, it's garbage. I mean, how is Google responsible for what another company and/or website does? Furthermore, wouldn't that mean FREE ads for that car dealership? Seriously now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My Opinion is:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name GOOGLE PTY LTD
ACN 002 780 289
ABN 42 002 780 289
So the ACCC is charging the Australian arm of the corporation. Secondly they are being charged under Section 52 of the trades practices act which states "A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive." which basically means the corporation cannot allow any other person/company to use them as a vehicle for deception/misleading practices. Google allowed the publisher to publish the adverts.
People are saying its a nothing charge and in America it probably isn't but the ACCC isn't a toothless tiger and normally they win there cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right on!
So you can't block all trademarked words. "Office" is trademarked. You want to block that from AdWords? I'm sure office supply warehouses would have issue with that.
Remember, trademarks are different then patents and what not. Just cause something is trademarked doesn't mean someone else can freely use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACCC is going after TradingPost mainly
Google allowed the 'Trading Post' to buy key-word adverts using 'Kloster Ford'. 'Ford' is generic and acceptable, the trademarked 'Kloster Ford' is not acceptable.
An example is; searching Google for 'pepsi cola' and the top link saying 'pepsi cola.com' but when you click the link you end up at 'coke.com'.
This is similar to the 2002 recommendations by the FTC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's a question of deception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's a question of deception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]