PR Response Via Adwords?

from the that's-one-tactic dept

I vaguely recall a similar story a couple years ago, though now I can't find it, but the Nieman Journalism Lab has an article about how PR folks are starting to use targeted Google AdWords buys to respond to negative press coverage. It doesn't seem like this sort of thing would really be all that effective, but the article discusses a PR guy who bought up AdWords on a variety of related keywords for the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council, after the NY Times came out with a negative story about overfishing. Of course, it looks like the guy also went over the line, claiming in one ad that the NY Times "apologizes for story," when the truth is that it just apologized for its use of a photograph it didn't have the rights to -- not the story itself. Amusingly, the guy also buys the reporters' own names as keywords in running his ads. I could see how that might intimidate the journalists (if they're particularly thin-skinned) but it's not really clear how that actually helps get the "other side" out.

What was potentially more interesting is that the NY Times (unlike many other newspaper websites) actually linked to the Council's website within the story, and the Council changed the page that clickers ended up on to a rebuttal to the NY Times story, whereas before it had just been a page about the type of fish in question. That seems like a smart move by the Fish Council, though it makes you realize why some publications might be skeptical about linking out, especially when whoever operates the site being linked to has the opportunity to change the site.

Filed Under: adwords, pr

Indian Company Sues Google For Showing Competitors Ads... Even Though It Places Ads On Competitors Too

from the what's-good-for-us... dept

There have been plenty of misguided lawsuits against Google, when someone gets upset and realizes that competitors are buying AdWords on their name or other trademarks. But, of course, that shouldn't be a trademark violation (unless the resulting ad is confusing). It's just well-placed marketing. Furthermore, even if it is trademark infringement, it shouldn't be Google's liability, but the party who bought and created the ad. However, the lawsuits still keep coming -- with the latest one being in India. But what makes this one special is that the complaining company seems to be buying those types of ads itself. So while it's complaining that competitors' ads show up on searches for its own name, it had no problem buying ads on competitors' names. Why not just try competing by offering a better service, rather than worrying about how competitors advertise?

Filed Under: ads, adwords, competitors, india, trademark
Companies: google

EU Court Of Justice Says Selling Ads On Trademarked Keywords Is Not Trademark Infringement

from the good-news dept

It seems like it should be common sense that Google isn't violating any trademark laws because some of its customers buy ads using keywords from other's trademarks. Trademark is about consumer protection -- keeping people from getting confused and buying one product believing it's made by someone else. It's only a recent phenomenon that trademark holders have tried to stretch and extend trademark to mean they get to control all uses of it and shut down any use they don't like. But having ads for competing products show up when someone's looking for a brand seems like perfectly reasonable competition. Still, luxury brands, such as LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessey), Tiffany, L'Oreal and others keep bringing lawsuits. LVMH won a case against Google in France, but that case moved up to the European Court of Justice, and senior judge there has now stepped in and said that selling ads shouldn't be trademark infringement, though a full decision is still a few months (at least) away. There's also an odd caveat: "Google could be held liable if brand owners could show that Google's ads had damaged their trademarks." What, exactly, does that mean? I'm guessing it's something similar to the already troubling "dilution" standard used in the US, but it seems impossibly vague and open to interpretation (and countless lawsuits).

Filed Under: adwords, europe, trademarks
Companies: google, lvmh

Yet Another Misguided Lawsuit Over Google's AdWords, This Time From Rosetta Stone

from the blame-the-real-party! dept

It's getting a bit tiresome to see these types of lawsuits, but Eric Goldman notes that this appears to be the ninth such lawsuit against Google, claiming trademark violations for allowing people to buy AdWords on trademarked terms (or suggesting them as keywords). This time the company suing is Rosetta Stone, but the complaint is basically the same. In fact, it uses the same lawyers and apparently the same boilerplate language as some previous lawsuits (wonder if they charge full price for reusing the same text?). The problem is the same, however. It's a general misunderstanding of the purpose of trademark law, which does not give the trademark holder full control over the trademark, but merely is designed as consumer protection to stop confusion among buyers or, possibly, dilution of the trademark. But that does not prevent the use in competitive advertisements. And, even if it did the liability would be on the advertising party, and not Google. But Google has the cash, so everyone sues Google.

Filed Under: adwords, trademarks
Companies: google, rosetta stone

Why Is Google Changing Its AdWords Trademark Policy Now?

from the confidence-in-its-lawyers? dept

I was quite surprised last week to find out that Google has changed its rules on trademarks and AdWords in many countries around the world. In the past, it had limited the use of trademarks both in the ads and (more importantly) as keyword triggers. In the US it had allowed trademarks as keyword triggers (in most cases), but in other countries, where the laws and the courts more heavily favored trademark holders, the company had been much more strict.

Now, I think Google is absolutely right to take this stance, as I don't see why it should be a problem at all to advertise on trademarked keywords, so long as the ads aren't confusing to the users. Trademark is not about ultimate control over the mark, but has always been designed for the sake of consumer protection, to avoid having someone buying Bob's Cola thinking it's Coca-Cola. It was never designed to give total control to one company and allow them to prevent anyone else from making use of the trademark. Yet, over the years, trademark law has drifted further and further from those origins, and today many people falsely believe that it's just like a patent or a copyright.

And, of course, even if you grant the (false) premise that trademarked terms shouldn't be used as keywords to trigger advertising, it's doubly ridiculous that Google should be liable. Google is just the platform provider, and if there needs to be any liability, then it should be on the advertiser, not Google itself.

So while I'm quite happy that Google is taking this stance, I'm really surprised (and somewhat confused) as to why it's doing so. It will almost certainly lead to a lot of expensive lawsuits around the globe -- and given how some other countries interpret trademark law these days, Google stands a decent chance of losing in some of those locations. Even in the US, the issue still comes up quite often... and, in fact, just as this change was being announced, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company in the US over the issue. Hopefully this case goes nowhere fast, because it seems to be repeating all the mistakes of earlier cases, misunderstanding the purpose of trademarks and falsely blaming Google rather than the actual advertisers. However, it's noteworthy in that it's the first class action suit of this nature, rather than just a single company. That means there will likely be more such suits on the way... and we'll start to see them internationally as well, thanks to the policy change.

In a NY Times article about both the change and the lawsuit, a representative from Google is quoted as saying:

"I think that there will be trademark owners that do not like this policy," said Terri Chen, senior trademark counsel at Google. "But trademark law allows for that. It is a pretty well-established principle in the offline world and in the online world."

Again, while I agree, I find Google's somewhat cavalier attitude towards the lawsuits that are certainly on the way surprising. It's not just that trademark owners won't like the policy. Many of them are going to sue -- and trademark law around the world (unfortunately) is not as "well-established" as Chen seems to make out. All in all, it seems a bit surprising that Google would go out of its way to attract new lawsuits. Could it be that the company is back to fighting certain lawsuits for principle? This was something the company had done years ago, but had largely abandoned of late. Or is there some other reason? Some might argue that it's a pure money grab, as this will allow more (and potentially more lucrative) advertising to run on the site, but the cost of lawsuits and the uncertainty of those lawsuits could be quite expensive.

Filed Under: adwords, lawsuits, policies, trademark
Companies: google

Why Google Shouldn't Be Liable For Suggesting Trademarked Terms In AdWords

from the it's-not-actual-use-in-commerce dept

Canadian lawyer David Canton (who I recently had the pleasure of meeting) has written up an excellent analysis why the recent ruling about Google's potential liability for suggesting trademarked keywords doesn't make much sense. His key point is a good one:

Perhaps Google did suggest a competitor's mark -- but trade-mark infringement only occurs when there is "use" in conjunction with similar products or services. How is Google supposed to know whether my use will infringe, or be perfectly lawful? A ruling that Google can never suggest keywords that happen to be trade-marked does not make sense to me.

For example, the word "Canton" has been trade-marked for various things by various companies in the U.S. and Canada, including speakers, liqueur, and soup. So if I wanted "David Canton" as a keyword, why would it be a problem for Google to suggest "Canton" as a possible keyword? Surely it's my responsibility to use that keyword for my own purposes to promote my legal services -- and not use it to sell my own line of speakers, liqueur or soup.

Google should have a role to play if I do that -- but the role should be to forward complaints or put the complainant in touch with me -- not to be liable itself for my infringement.

Indeed. Yet another reason for why the Second Circuit's ruling is so troubling.

Filed Under: adwords, liability, trademark
Companies: google

A Lawsuit Over Trademarks In AdWords That Makes Sense

from the one-of-the-few dept

I tend to believe most of the lawsuits companies raise over the use of their trademarks as keywords or in ads on Google are bogus. They tend to stem from companies believing they own all rights to the trademark, rather than recognizing that a trademark is designed more to prevent customer confusion. Yet, a new case that is getting attention seems a bit different, and from the facts presented (admittedly from one side only), raises a lot of concerns. Jeremy Shoemaker, a somewhat well-known internet marketer (under the name Shoemoney), had gone through Google's regular procedure to register his trademarks to prevent other companies from showing those trademarks in an ad. Yet, he discovered recently that at least one advertiser was able to keep showing ads with "Shoemoney" in the ad -- and even using it as the sole "title" of the ad, which could certainly confuse people into believing the ad would lead to Shoemaker's own site.

The site that it did lead to was registered under a masked name, so he ended up getting a subpoena and uncovering the name of the individual who owned the site. And here's where it gets odd: there's a lot of evidence out there that the guy in question works for Google having something to do with AdWords. So, Shoemaker has sued the employee (not Google itself, though). There are a lot of questions raised about this, including why it appears a Google employee may have been able to bypass Google's own blocks on using trademarked terms to run these ads. There's also an accusation, though again from just one side, that the same guy appeared to be using the identical keywords that Shoemaker uses -- suggesting that he had access to Shoemaker's account.

The whole thing seems pretty questionable -- and Google's response so far (a big "no comment") isn't particularly reassuring.

Filed Under: adwords, jeremy shoemaker, shoemoney, trademark

Dangerous Appeals Court Ruling Opens Up Google To Trademark Liability In AdWords

from the common-sense-is-missing dept

One of our big complaints with the various lawsuits filed over companies buying ads in search engines based on trademarks of their competitors was the idea that somehow the search engines themselves were liable as infringers. That made little sense. The purpose of trademark law is to avoid consumer confusion, not give the mark holder total control over the mark. If the ad itself is confusing, then you could see a reason to sue the company that created the ad -- but it's ridiculous to blame Google or Yahoo, who had no part in actually creating the ad. A variety of lawsuits had agreed -- and, in fact, most of the recent lawsuits on this topic that we'd seen involved companies suing whoever took out the actual ad.

Unfortunately, it looks like that's about to change.

Eric Goldman has an analysis of a new Second Circuit ruling that found that Google is potentially liable for ads bought on trademarked terms, overturning a lower court ruling that made sense. Goldman points to some factual errors made by the court in making this decision, but the oddest bit of reasoning is that the court actually took on a point that we often raise here in discussing these types of cases: no one thinks there's any trademark infringement because a supermarket places multiple brands of soda in the same spot. The supermarket knows that people may be looking for Coca-Cola, but may be tempted to buy the off-brand cola that's on sale. That's not trademark infringement against Coca-Cola and certainly not the store's liability.... or is it. In this ruling, the court noted:

It is not by reason of absence of a use of a mark in commerce that benign product placement escapes liability; it escapes liability because it is a benign practice which does not cause a likelihood of consumer confusion. In contrast, if a retail seller were to be paid by an off-brand purveyor to arrange product display and delivery in such a way that customers seeking to purchase a famous brand would receive the off-brand, believing they had gotten the brand they were seeking, we see no reason to believe the practice would escape liability merely because it could claim the mantle of "product placement."

That implies that Google's placement of search ads somehow tricks users into believing when they click on, say, an ad for Avis, they're actually going to the Hertz website. Yet, there doesn't seem to be any evidence presented that users are regularly fooled by such ads. Most users recognize that ads are ads.

The ruling pins liability on Google because Google "suggests" terms that may be relevant, and since it suggests trademarked terms at times, that dumps the liability onto Google. But, again, that makes little sense. Nothing that Google does is specifically causing confusion. Simply suggesting a trademark isn't confusing anyone. Unfortunately, though, as the EFF points out in its analysis of the ruling, this is likely to lead to a lot of new bogus lawsuits against Google, and (most likely) Google scaling back some of its AdWords tools and programs, giving consumers less ability to find out about competitive offers when we search.

Filed Under: adwords, liability, trademark
Companies: google, rescuecom

Psion Gets Google To Ban 'Netbook' In Ads

from the doesn't-look-that-way... dept

Late last year, we wrote about Psion's attempt to reclaim the word "netbook." Years back, the company had a marginally popular product with that name -- though it no longer offers such a product. The company was apparently upset at the commercial use of the word "netbook" which is commonly being used to describe cheap, small laptops like the EeePC. jkOnTheRun now has a story -- direct from Psion PR -- claiming that Google has agreed to block Google ads that use the term after recognizing that Psion has a trademark on the term.

Of course, advertisers can still advertise using the keyword "netbooks" but are apparently barred from actually using the word in the advertisement itself. So a search on "netbooks" still shows ads -- just none of those ads say "netbooks" anywhere. Thus, if you look at the netbooks search, you see all the ads refer to things like "mini notebooks."

This seems pretty pointless all around. As much as Psion may wish it still holds onto the name of a product it stopped selling years ago, the term has become generically accepted as referring to this generation of small and cheap notebook computers. Psion has had nothing to do with the current value in the word, and its attempt to take back control over the word it abandoned years ago is not, at all, what trademark law was intended to allow.

Filed Under: ads, adwords, netbook, trademarks
Companies: google, psion

Another Bad French Ruling Against Google Over Trademarked Adwords

from the this-again? dept

It's amazing that after all these years, we're still seeing these types of lawsuits -- with these types of results. It involves the question of whether or not a company can buy an AdWords advertisement on Google using keywords that are trademarked by a competitor -- and then, secondarily, if this is trademark infringement, whether or not Google is liable. I have trouble seeing how the answer to the first question is even a yes, but French courts have repeatedly said yes not just to the first one, but to the second question as well. This time Google is being fined hundreds of thousands of euros for allowing certain trademarked words to have advertisements run against them.

It's hard to see how this makes any sense at all. First, unless the ads are designed to confuse someone, there should be no question that ads against a competitor's keywords are perfectly legal. There's no customer confusion (the point of trademark law). It's no different than having your product placed on the grocery store shelf next to competing products, or (as is quite common in supermarkets these days) having a coupon print out for your product when you buy a competing one. Claiming this is trademark infringement is just a weak attempt to stifle competition by brands that don't want to compete.

That said, even if you somehow think that this is trademark infringement, it's an even bigger stretch to then pin the liability on Google. The actual party doing the "infringing" would be whoever bought and created the advertisement. Going after Google is a Steve Dallas defense: going after the biggest company that, tangentially, is involved just because it has the biggest bank account. Sure, Google makes money from the ads, but that shouldn't create liability any more than the guy who sells the paints that are used to paint a trademark-infringing billboard is liable for what's painted. Like the paint seller, Google is just a tool provider and has nothing to do with the content. Unfortunately, this bit of common sense still hasn't made it into the French court system.

Filed Under: adwords, france, trademarks
Companies: google