American Airlines The Latest To Sue Google Over Trademarked Keywords
from the don't-they-have-more-important-things-to-focus-on? dept
You would think that with a number of judges already stating that keyword advertising based on a trademarked term is not trademark infringement that companies would stop filing such lawsuits. Apparently, you'd be wrong. And, oddly, the latest company to file such a lawsuit isn't a small no-name company (as is usually the case), but American Airlines who is suing Google for showing ads when people search on American Airlines. There are many problems with this lawsuit. First and foremost, suing Google is going after the wrong party. Google isn't the one doing the advertising, they're simply providing the billboard on which advertisers can write what they want. If there is infringement, then it should be the liability of the advertisers, not Google. Second, it's most likely not trademark infringement. Trademarks, unlike copyrights and patents, aren't designed to give the company full control, but just to prevent customer confusion. As long as the ads aren't misleading people into thinking that clicking on them will take them to American Airlines' own site, then it's hard to see how it's trademark infringement. It's perfectly legal (and good business) to advertise in a place when someone is looking for the competition. That's why you see discount coupons in supermarkets right next to competing products. Also, American Airlines is apparently complaining that some of the advertisers, while legally selling American Airlines tickets, also sell competitors' tickets. There's absolutely nothing illegal about that. If a company legitimately sells AA tickets, and someone does a search on American Airlines, why shouldn't they be able to point out that they sell AA tickets -- even if they also sell someone else's tickets? So far, most of these lawsuits end up going quite poorly for the complaining company, so this seems like it's likely going to be a waste of time and money for American Airlines, at a time when it would seem like they have a lot more pressing problems to be solving.
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
Filed Under: keyword advertising, trademarks
Companies: american airlines, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The avalanche has already started..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The avalanche has already started..
Search marketers seems to think that these trademark suits are fruitless, but that mentality couldn’t be farther than the truth.
In 2005, Google was forced to change their trademark advertising policy after a devastating blow from a federal district court in the Geico Case. The court stated:
“…the district court found that the “extremely high” percentage of respondents who experienced some degree of confusion when viewing these advertisements was sufficient to show that there was a likelihood of confusion present when GEICO’s marks appeared in either the heading or the text of a Sponsored Link advertisement.”
“Google advised the district court that it had no contrary evidence. Thus, the district court held that GEICO had established a likelihood of confusion and had therefore shown that Google violated the Lanham Act with regard to those Sponsored Link advertisements that included GEICO’s marks in the headings or text.”
Google then settled with Geico to avoid a tumultuous threat to their business model and quickly changed their trademark policy to reflect the wisdom of the court.
This issue is not going to go away, because trademark infringement in the ads of search is very real and damaging. If it rolls into a class action, the search engines will face astounding costs in compensatory damages. They are much better off updating policies to halt the brokering of trademarks–for once I agree with France.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having said that, this is a ridiculous lawsuit that deserves to be tossed out.
JGM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlike something that is only a platform Google provides the advertising in a way that they are actively involved. They are actively involved in the selling and management of the keyword advertising. If the advertising was random then they would be protected, but that's not the case with advertisers who are paying Google to display their adds based on specific keywords.
Regretfully there isn't a way to truly chastise or punish companies like this who actively abuse the legal system for what they know (at least their lawyers should know) is frivolous. It's a sad state of affairs when businesses are rewarded more for bullying tactics than for actual business acumen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AA.
Best wishes,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Over budget-Need to spend the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
american ghetto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say - let them win. Google - remove AA from your worldwide search.
Additionaly, they are not protecting their Marks. American Eagle is clothes, not cheap regional airlines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The classic example is Apple - the record company and the computer company would not be easily confused with each other by consumers as long as Apple Computer didn't sell music. As soon as Apple introduced the iPod there became a high potential for confusion, hence the situation where Apple Computer has to walk a very fine line and avoid putting the words 'Apple' and 'iTunes' in close proximity.
Imagine how rich the lawyers would get if Apple Records decided to market an Apple Records branded MP3 player!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Xerox is a trademark
But, these companies allowed their brand names to be diluted when they became household names. Some people need Kleenex when they have a cold (rather than tissue, and not tissue paper since that is something else). Other people go to work to make Xerox copies of documents (or simply just Xerox it).
It is not about how little I understand trademarks, it is that American Airlines has a trademark for American Eagle, which sells clothes. And that they allowed their trademark to become diluted.
You said, "Imagine how rich the lawyers would get if Apple Records decided to market an Apple Records branded MP3 player!".
I say:
Imagine how rich the lawyers would get if American Eagle decided to market pilot clothes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Problem for whom? Not a problem for AA, I'm sure they'd LIKE every search on that term to steer people to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People searching for "American Airlines" (the company) are being infringed but "American Airlines" (looking for airlines within the US) is a benefit. There is no way to distinguish between the two.
If I were Google, I would just say "OK, searches for "American Airlines" now show results for Delta - case closed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How in the heck are "people" being infringed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are missing the point or didn't read the lawsuit or both. The judge cannot order them [Google] to point search results for "american airlines" to AA's website: it already (and almost always) did.
AA's complaint is that Google sells Sponsored Links for the keywords "american airlines". Of course, this claim is ludicrous for many reasons:
1 - Google doesn't know whether the person conducting the search wants "American Airlines" the company, airlines in America, crashes/hijackings involving "American Airlines" or the down and dirty on the company.
2 - aa.com, American Airlines website, was and still is the #1 result.
3 - You have to be 10 years old or a relative internet noob to confuse non-AA Sponsored Links with the real AA website. Just look at the URL printed plain as day under the add.
4 - AA claims that people want AA when they search for "american airlines". I would like to suggest that many, many people that want to purchase American Airline tickets are probably looking for the cheapest price/best deal.
5 - AA lists three trade marks that were violated. However, one of the trade marks listed by AA is DEAD, one is for "americanairlines" (all one word) and the other one is a service mark for "American Airlines" filed in G & S: AIR TRANSPORT OF PASSENGERS AND FREIGHT.
Let's not just boycott AA; let's hijack 'em as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and the point is?
Unless (a) it's just another excuse to wank off about how evil IP law is.
Or
(b) we must support Google, 'cause while they ruthlessly defend their own IP they sh1t on everybody else's. And sh1tting on IP is what counts. Gimme a fscking break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and the point is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Latest To Sue Google Over Trademarked Keywords
recklessly aid its customers in flagrantly violating other companies' patented keywords and trademarks. I predict that if they continue with their cocky illegality that in the near future they would be swamped with an avalanche of lawsuits that would wipe them off. I am sure that would put a big smile on Ballmer's face.
Maychic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Airlines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Airlines
1.- Wherever you want to go you are likely to have to transfer planes, sometimes more than once. One time I was going to South America and the stupid plane stopped in Puerto Rico (dont ask me why) and gave me 10 minutes to get on the other plane. There was a line if about 200 people who had deplaned and were trying to get through the beeper thing. I had to charge through, screaming and elbowing people out of the way, and was able to get on my plane just as the doors were closing.
2.- The seats have been taken out and refitted so there are 3.5 inches between you and the next person. You spend four or five hours with your knees under your chin. And dont even think of going to the bathroom. There a female Godzilla insisting you keep your seat belt on. It makes life easier for the staff if everybody stays in their seats, liked canned peaches.
3.- I bought a ticket and got sick a couple of days before leaving, so I cancelled the trip. The will charge me $100. just to reactivate the ticket, and will only refund it if I die. In other words, once you buy a ticket, that money is theirs and will always be theirs. I have to take the trip or just flush the amount down the toilet.
Somebody should sue THEM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pleadings for American Airlines vs Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Airline Stinks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American Airline Stinks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
au
[ link to this | view in chronology ]