Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet The Almighty Buck

Google Loses AdWords Case 274

Posted by Hemos from the bad-news-bears dept.
TheChillPill writes "Google has lost a case brought by a company whose name was being used by Adwords users. Insurance firm GEICO, who had not been using Adwords themselves, objected to Google allowing it's advertisers to use the term in their campaigns." This is a reversal for Google based on an earlier story.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Loses AdWords Case More

Google Loses AdWords Case

Comments Filter:

  • As a Google fan (Score:5, Funny)

    by BlackCobra43 ( 596714 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:04AM (#13320903)
    This really saddens me. But it's okay because I just saved a bunch of money on car insurance

    • Re:As a Google fan (Score:5, Informative)

      by B'Trey ( 111263 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:16AM (#13320967)
      This is a reversal for Google based on an earlier story.

      Don't be too sad. This isn't really a reversal of the earlier decision. It's actually two seperate but related issues. The first decision, which Google won, concerned using a trademarked term to trigger an ad. The second concerned using a trademarked term inside a competitor's ad. So if I pay Google to put up an ad which reads "B'Trey's Auto Insurance - best in the business!" whenever someone searches for Geico, I'm OK. But if I pay Google to put up an ad which reads "B'Trey's Auto Insurance - better than Geico!" then I run afoul of this ruling.

      I'm not real happy with this ruling - unless the ad is fraudulent (ie makes untrue claims about the trademarked term), then I don't see where Geico (or any other trademark holder) has a legal right to protest. But it's nor a reversal of the earlier decision.

      • Re:As a Google fan (Score:5, Informative)

        by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:27AM (#13321059) Journal
        But if I pay Google to put up an ad which reads "B'Trey's Auto Insurance - better than Geico!" then I run afoul of this ruling.

        Do you violate the ruling or does Google for accepting your business?

        Is it now illegal to mention a competitor in an ad for your own service or product?
        =Smidge=

        • Re:As a Google fan (Score:2, Informative)

          by Fishstick ( 150821 )
          >Do you violate the ruling or does Google for accepting your business?

          RTFA, that has yet to be decided:

          According to GEICO, the court has stayed the trial for 30 days to give the parties an opportunity to settle. If the parties do not settle, the trial will continue on the question of damages and on the issue of who is liable: Google or Google's advertisers.
           
          • There are these things called "hypothetical" questions... you know, the kind of thing you ask when you want to discuss and compare ideas rather than aquire factual information...

            =Smidge=

        • Re:As a Google fan (Score:4, Insightful)

          by EggyToast ( 858951 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:49AM (#13321215) Homepage
          Isn't this already true for advertising? I don't watch much TV, but the times that I do I always see ads for "Eat our chips, they're not greasy like those other guys," "Our laundry detergent works better than the leading brand!" and "why shop at those other guys?"

          They're all vague references to other companies that most people have an idea about, but are not mentioned. I've never seen a car commercial that says "Buy [our brand], because it's just better than a Ford," or a fast food commercial that says "why eat McDonalds when there's Wendys?"

          It seems like these laws are already in place, probably to protect companies from competitors that could engage in either negative advertising or use their established brand to piggy-back.

          To answer your initial question, though, I'd imagine that Google will now reject ads that fall under this criteria. If they accept them and continue to list them, that's Google's problem -- they're the ones who lost the lawsuit, not individual advertisers.

          • Re:As a Google fan (Score:3, Informative)

            by bentcd ( 690786 )
            Technically, the laws are there in order to protect the consumer, who might otherwise become confused as to which product comes from which producer.
            With current trademark law, I, as a consumer, can rest easy knowing that when I buy a gadget that says "Sony" on it, chances are it's Sony that marketed it. Without trademark law, Samsung could happily sell Sony-marked merchandise if they figured it would be profitable to do so.

          • Re:As a Google fan (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            what about the ads where a coke truck guy is caught buying pepsi from a vending machine? Or was it the other way around?

            • Effective Ad (Score:3, Insightful)

              by PhYrE2k2 ( 806396 )
              I'm glad that ad had a good affect on you. I know you'll be going out to buy some coke... errr Pepsi... no Coke... errr... Just pick up a case of each.

              -M
          • Actually, auto ads regularly mention competing brands directly. For refrence, a Ford ad where they have 'Mr Tough Ford driver' pull out three sample frame rails, with the Ford unit being bigger. He then shows the 'inferior' units while saying which brand they come from, Dodge and Chevy.

            Mazda (I think) has adds with techs wearing lab coats blazoned with "Toyota", "Honda", on them drooling over Mazda's latest and greatest.

          • Re:As a Google fan (Score:5, Informative)

            by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @12:01PM (#13321863)
            Actually, it's more a matter of being able to back up what you say, or relying on a competitor's own published info. For example, a Subway ad might mention that one of their Super Tasty Toasted Meat Thingy Sandwiches has less saturated fat than McDonald's Big Mac. They're able to say this comfortably because McDonald's actually publishes the information. That's a lot different than saying "our sandwich is better than McDonalds' burger" because that is a very subjective comparison. When companies do want to make claims like that, the language always comes out, "in recent clinical taste tests..." with screen footers referring to the source of the info. Point is, the more narrow the comparitive/competitive claim, the more likely it is to get into an ad... but it also tends to sound drier and have less overall appeal.

            Where that sort of naming-names comparison really works is in highly specialized markets where the consumers are keenly aware of the available products and actually want to compare specs. The nearest thing to this for the general consumer audience is probably the automotive market, where the manufacturers routinely compare horsepower, mileage, etc. with specific other cars.

            There's nothing protecting a company from a competitor's "negative" ad, just laws protecting them from liable (actual false information that impacts their reputation). That's why you don't usually see an ad from Ford saying that "don't buy a Chevy, they're more popular with mean people" etc. Just because an ad points out something inferior about the competition (truly, a "negative" ad) doesn't make it illegal. But regardless of the legality, most advertisers (with the notable exception of political campaigns) stay away from overtly bashing the competition, since they know that it's a sign of weakness. If you can't sell on specific merits, you compose ads that just convey a nice feeling and hope that works. If you have to resort to trashing the competition (however much they may deserve it) you're going to alienate some customers just because of your tone. As long as advertisers don't overtly deceive, they're pretty much able to say anything, which is as it should be.

          • Re:As a Google fan (Score:3, Interesting)

            by SeaFox ( 739806 )
            They're all vague references to other companies that most people have an idea about, but are not mentioned. I've never seen a car commercial that says "Buy [our brand], because it's just better than a Ford,"

            I do. But then, they don't use dumb resoning like their car is "just better" than a Ford. They say things like "higher resale value than Ford or Chevy", "more interior room than Accord", "higher owner brand loyalty than Toyota". And considering how polls and studies are conducted nowadays they all can ma

          • Re:As a Google fan (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Aidtopia ( 667351 )

            "Eat our chips, they're not greasy like those other guys," "Our laundry detergent works better than the leading brand!" and "why shop at those other guys?"

            I believe that advertisements avoid naming the competition because:

            1. Mentioning the competition, even in a bad light, might reinforce their brand.
            2. The parent company may also be the parent of the "leading brand". (See Proctor and Gamble [pg.com] for an example.)

        • Re:As a Google fan (Score:4, Funny)

          by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamar@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Monday August 15, 2005 @12:33PM (#13322078) Homepage Journal
          What's wrong with you? The ruling is so simple to understand even a caveman gets it.
      • But if I pay Google to put up an ad which reads "B'Trey's Auto Insurance - better than Geico!" then I run afoul of this ruling.

        I looked at the article to see if it specified what the actual ad was that caused the problem. All it said was GEICO had established a likelihood of confusion. I would consider your example a fair use (although IANAL), but what is to stop you from putting an ad up that read "GEICO Insurance" and linking to your site? That could easily create confusion and dilute the value GIEC
      • But if I pay Google to put up an ad which reads "B'Trey's Auto Insurance - better than Geico!" then I run afoul of this ruling.

        I doubt that the scope of this ruling includes such marketing hyperbole. Not long ago, if you Googled on "GEICO", you'd see a couple of sponsored ads that read simply "GEICO Auto Insurance" but linked to non-affiliated companies or agencies. This was clearly misleading, and I would hope that this is the sort of thing addressed by the ruling at hand.

        This is not to say that GE
    • But it's okay because I just saved a bunch of money on car insurance - just make it your sig and be over with it!

  • Lost its case, huh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by RandoX ( 828285 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:10AM (#13320930)
    Should have had a Case Else.

  • But (Score:5, Funny)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:11AM (#13320933) Homepage
    Its understandable seeing as how Geico was losing 15% of its profits.

    • Re:But (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kevin_conaway ( 585204 )
      Normally I wouldn't reply to myself, but you moderators are idiots. There was nothing insightful about my post. It was a joke, its funny, laugh.
      • Thanks, and by way of this post, my Insightful mod will be removed :) Have a nice day.
      • I was also curious as to how the moderators could not only take this oddly round 15% figure at face value but also NOT see the underlying humor.

        We're just a couple of misunderstood jokers
    • Its understandable seeing as how Geico was losing 15% of its profits.

      That is a pretty vague piece of information, and even so, I can't find this in any of the news stories I checked. I'm curious how much of this really has anything to do with the contended Google listings.

  • Are they sure... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Drooling Iguana ( 61479 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:11AM (#13320935)
    Are they sure that people weren't actually using the word "gecko"? I've heard a lot of people get the two confused.

  • I wonder if this is going to broaden... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Undefined Tag ( 750722 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:12AM (#13320940) Homepage

    I wonder if this is going to open the door for companies to take action against domain names that are similar to their trademarked name.

    If it's unacceptable for Google to sell "Geico", will it also be unacceptable for someone to have www.G31c0.com and no, I don't know if that's a valid URL or not.

  • Explain this to me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:14AM (#13320948)
    Google is one of many search service. You use it voluntarily. Why shouldn't they have the right to display what they want depending on the word you type in. They are not using the geico name illegally as I know, simply display competitor's sites when that search is iniated.

    A similiar thing happens when I go to fast food (KFC, Tacobell, Pepsi owned?) restaurants and ask for a Sprite - "No, sorry sir, we only carry Slice. Would you like that?" They don't simply say no and leave it at that.

    They could as easily drop geico's webpage completely - that should be within google's rights. No one promised Geico that they be displayed at all after all in this privately owned website.
    • Google's job is to navigate and not deceive. If you told a cab driver "Take me to the Holiday Inn" and he took you to some shady motel that paid off the taxi driver, you'd be pissed off.

      Google makes money off of ads which are supposed to be "related" to your search query. Misusing someone's trademark to link to other companies is not legal.

      Related story in which colleges' names were being used to sell disreputable degrees. [post-gazette.com]

      • Re:Explain this to me (Score:5, Informative)

        by B'Trey ( 111263 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:21AM (#13321012)
        Google makes money off of ads which are supposed to be "related" to your search query. Misusing someone's trademark to link to other companies is not legal.

        Wrong on two accounts. First, it's not a misuse. Other insurance companies are certainly related to a search on "Geico." Second, it is not illegal to display ads based on a trademarked term. It's only illegal to display an ad which uses the trademarked term inside the ad.

        • Allow me to provide an example of the ads used.

          GEICO
          Save money over Geico. aff
          freeinsquot.com

          BZZT! WRONG! BZZT! WRONG! BZZT! WRONG! BZZT!

        • at least a vast over simplification (Score:4, Informative)

          by YesIAmAScript ( 886271 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @12:11PM (#13321933)
          Or perhaps just plain wrong.

          The basis for trademark law is the idea of unfair competition.

          So let's start testing this.

          It is legal to mention your competitor's trademarked name to say you are better than them, if it is true. And by true, that means proveably true. This is because it isn't unfair to state the truth. Not that if you can't prove it, because it is a matter of opinion (taste tests) or because you are playing tricks in your tests (like the paper towel strength tests), then you use "brand X".

          It is legal to use a companies' trademarked name for non-commercial purposes. This is because it isn't competition since it isn't even a commmercial endeavour.

          It is not legal to use a companies' trademarked name to lie about them (especially commercially), that would be unfair. Although it's pretty much unfair to lie about a company anyway even if you did avoid their trademark.

          It is not legal to masquerade as another company. For example, if I make breakfast oat-rings, I cannot just print up a Cheerios box and put them in it so they sell better. That would be using the properties of General Mills against them. Every dollar they spent advertising or building a name would actually work for me too (and thus against them), I'm unfairly leveraging their efforts.

          Now, what about just mentioning them to say you are like them (or perhaps unlike them), as in this case. It is possible to do this legally. For example, if I make an aftermarket HP-compatible ink cartridge I can use their name to indicate what it is. I can say "HP-compatible". Or even "compatible with HP printers" or "replaces HP cartridge #XXYY-035". However, there is an easy way to get in trouble in this case. If I made my box say "HP" covering 90% of the front of the box and my company name in tiny lettering in the corner or on the side, I would be masquerading as an HP product (at least long enough to get your attention), and again that would be unfair. See Negativland's U2 album http://foetusized.org/u2.html [foetusized.org] for example.

          This can happen for regular advertising too. For example, Miller's ads could say "Bud Bud Bud Bud Bud Bud (Miller)" and basically associate themselves more strongly with Budweiser than their own name. That would be unfair too. It even could happen with a (normally legal) comparison ad, like the "better than" ads above. You could truthfully mention you are better than the other product, but spend so much time (or space) in your ad doing it that you are using their name to associate with yours. Obviously all of this is subject to some interpretation.

          So, to go to the AdWords thing, is it illegal? Well, you are using a competitors term and using it commercially. So the competition part is there. But the question is, is it unfair to pop up when your competitor's trademarked term is entered. In my opinion, it probably is. In this case, your product's "box art" (the item that attracts people to look at your product/ad) is essentially 100% your competitor's trademarks. It's like that Negativland cover. When someone sees it from far away, it looks more like your compeitition than yourself; and by design. Information that says that this isn't really your competitor's product is available in your detailed ad, but isn't nearly as visible, and requires a more detailed examination, like hiding your name down in the corner or on the side of the box. Furthermore, every ad dollar your competitor spends is twisted to work against them by helping you. The more people learn their name and enter it into the search box, the more your name pops up.

          Thus, in my opinion, buying adwords of your competitor's trademarks is probably unfair competition and thus illegal. And if judges think like me (I shudder to think) they have no choice but to rule against Google. I don't feel it should be illegal, so I would like Congress to step in and change the law in this case. Will they do it? Probably depends on who has the most lobbying money.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Roto-Rooter pursued and won litigation against companies that used related spellings like "Rota-Rooter" to fool Directory Assistance operators. With a New York accent, both of those names sound very similar.

          However, this is Slashdot, where names like "killustrator" and "mikerowesoft" are considered original.
      • And If I did a search on GEICO competitors would that be okay?
        The way Google works you could get pages like GEICO sucks, We have cheaper insurance than GEICO and why I would never buy from GEICO again. All of which would be legit. It is not as if GEICO.com was being hijacked. Companies that are in the same market as the target of the search ARE related.
      • Hmmm a better analogy is that the Taxi driver tells you about an alternative hotel he knows and offers to take you there instead but doesn't force you to go there.

        What you're describing is a phishing attack, not a google ad. If the google ad said "Click here to go to www.geico.com" but went to a competing insurance company, then you'd be correct.

    • Re:Explain this to me (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gowen ( 141411 )
      Why shouldn't they have the right to display what they want depending on the word you type in
      Because you're not allowed to leverage other people's trademarks to sell your service. That's the point of trademarks. You might as well ask "Why can't I put innocuous words like `Armani' on the shirts I make".

      Sheesh.
      • Because you're not allowed to leverage other people's trademarks to sell your service. That's the point of trademarks. You might as well ask "Why can't I put innocuous words like `Armani' on the shirts I make".

        No, I would think it's closer to going to Neiman Marcus (or Macy's or whoever) and asking to see their selection on Armani shirts.

        On the way there, the sale's clerk goes "Oh, btw right here next to the Armani shirts is our housebrand." The sign shows it's 50% off and looks like the same quality.
    • It's not actually the same. For many people, Google is the Internet, and so the rules that apply to them need to be a little different. They could easily turn to evil, destroying companies by removing them from their search index (or only returning commercial links if you pony up a fee). With such power comes responsibility, and while I don't think the Geico should complain (they are free to Adwordjack their competitors name), they have a good point. Could you go out on the street and sell your own brand of
      • Could you go out on the street and sell your own brand of soda with the label: Better than Coca Cola
        Probably, so long as you make it quite clear that you're not actually selling Coca Cola. (Depending somewhat on your local "truth in advertising" laws, however, you may end up having to prove your claim.)

  • So Geico... (Score:3, Informative)

    by rahlquist ( 558509 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:14AM (#13320950) Homepage
    There is no such thing as bad publicity. Geico just got their advertising courtesy of Google and didn't even have to pay Google for it. Slick move.
    • Wanna bet? I certainly am never buying more insurance from Geico so that they can continue with frivolous lawsuits using my money. You could argue that if the case got to court and they won, then the suit is not frivolous. However I think if you sue often enough you're bound to get a case in and win once in a while. Maybe this was just due to the law of averages dictating that they were bound to win something eventually. You may never win the lottery, but someone does.

      Oh my personal boycott not goi
    • This isn't about publicity, this is about competition and fair use of trademarks. They could do much better on commercials rather than lawyers. And until trademark law is changed, using them in your context without permission is a violation of trademark law. That's the crux of the case.

      If you believe any publicity is good, then why did McDonald's clean up their act....why did Microsoft actually pay (if pitiable) attention to security? I suppose you code in VB, too...

  • Using competitors names (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ChrisF79 ( 829953 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:15AM (#13320954) Homepage
    I just recently saw a commercial for some insurance company and noticed that they didn't use Geico's name. Instead, the guy says, "She had the gecko." I guess that insurance company made the right move if Geico is litigation happy, trying to protect their name.

    • Re:Using competitors names (Score:5, Informative)

      by arkanes ( 521690 ) <<arkanes> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:22AM (#13321016) Homepage
      For exactly this reason, companies very rarely directly compare themselves to a competitor - even though it's within the ream of fair use of a trademark, nobody wants to litigate over a commercial. There's the secondary reason that they don't want to spend thier own money popularizing someone elses name brand, of course.

      That's why the "Pepsi Challenge" is between Pepsi and "some other drinks", or detergent is between whatever and "The market leading brand", etc.

      • I wonder why beer companies compare themsevles so much to a competitor (especially miller/bud). I don't think it's illegal. It may not be smart as far as adding to name recognition for th other guy...
        • beer companies compare themsevles so much to a competitor (especially miller/bud)

                I dunno I've never seen them compare themselves to a urinating horse, which pretty much sums up what American beer tastes like...

  • GEICO (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kylere ( 846597 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:17AM (#13320971)
    I used GEICO when I was overseas because they provided insurance to soldiers, from 1991 to 2003 I used GEICO, then I had an accident and filed a claim.

    Their adjuster did not really even look at the vehicle and they only repaired the visible damage without even looking underneath the vehicle, when I griped to a person making a followup call, they fixed some of the issues and left the rest unrepaired. Then they would not renew my policy.

    I am not the only person they have done this to, they are hands down the worst insurance agency I have ever dealt with, and I am sure that my daring to complain is what lost my coverage. Now I have better coverage at lower rates with another firm.

    I hope this is reversed, because geeks do not let geeks use GEICO.

    • Re:GEICO (Score:5, Informative)

      by B'Trey ( 111263 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:38AM (#13321128)
      This is one of the key factors in insurance. How can company A afford to be cheaper than everyone else? Usually, by paying out fewer claims. One way to pay out fewer claims is to only insure people who are less likely to file a claim. The other way is to deny more claims. Do a bit of research. Look at the companies that claim they're cheaper than everyone else and see what percentage of claims filed they actually pay. What do you want insurance for? To meet the legal requirements? Or to protect yourself against loss? If the latter, do you really want to do business with a company that's going to fight tooth and nail against paying your claim when you need them?

      PS And I'm not just talking about Geico here. Do your own research on Geico and find out if they fit the profile I described, but do the same to the other insurance companies that brag about how cheap they are.

    • Re:GEICO (Score:3, Informative)

      by jtorkbob ( 885054 )
      When my wife was just 18 she had an accident, not her fault, that resulted in her truck being totaled. The claim was to be paid by Geico, and it was like pulling teeth. It literally took six months AFTER the adjuster came to get them to send us a check. Their check-writing-adjuster thought that she was young and naive and used every trick in the book to try and put her off - sent the check to the wrong address, forgot to sign it, wrong amount, etc.

      In the end I called and asked for his physical address. H
    • I am kinda disgusted with insurance in general. I had Geico myself, and when vandals payed my Subaru a visit, I had to pay for the repair myself. The (expensive) cheapest plan I could get from them would not cover the damage.

      So I switched insurance companies, bumped up the plan just to cover glass, and skimped on as much else as I could, to keep my insurance bill down. Now, I pay more than one of my coworkers does, and he has two cars and two people on the policy, and his policy covers damage and far more
    • I was intrigued by saving money on my car insurance, so I gave them a call. That's when I found out they don't operate in Massachusetts.

      Oh well, insurance here is cheap enough already. ($600 a year for two cars).

    • Re:GEICO (Score:3, Informative)

      by instantgames ( 610178 )
      More on GEICO at this site's "Hall of Shame" http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/indexdetaillist.h tml [badfaithinsurance.org]

    • Re:GEICO (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @11:33AM (#13321650) Homepage
      I switched to AIG, they were cheaper for my 2 cars, and when my wife had a fender bender, they had the damage inspected by a shop of our choice (we picked the dealer) then sent out someone to evalutate the dealers quote. Then they let the dealer fix it. When the dealer found more damage after starting the repair, again they sent out a guy to evaluate, and paid for the extra repairs too. Best experiance I have ever had with an insurance company. From accident to getting the car back in our hands - 1 week.

  • Irony? (Score:4, Funny)

    by IorDMUX ( 870522 ) <mark DOT zimmerman3 AT gmail DOT com> on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:18AM (#13320983) Homepage
    And... and there was a Google AdSense advertisment showing on this very comment page.

    Why, oh /., why?

  • I also object.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theGreater ( 596196 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:18AM (#13320984) Homepage

    ... to corporations not protecting me enough. Let's pretend for a second that this case did -not- involve Teh Intarweb; which scenario is then more likely:

    GEICO sues the Wall Street Journal, because Progressive places an ad in said WSJ invoking GEICO's name without the proper attribution (usually a "* Blah is trademark and copyright of CompanyCo").

    -or-

    GEICO sues Progressive for placing said ad in the WSJ and thereby diluting the GEICO trademark.

    -theGreater.
    • Wouldn't this be similar to an insurance company taking out an ad that said Geico with a phone number, but having the phone number go to another company than Geico? Or am I wrong (I am seriously wondering... Please don't be rude)
    • A better analogy would be the WSJ running an article about GIECO and placing an ad by a competitor in the middle of the story. In this case, I don't possibly see how a court could regard that as wrong.

  • Simple Solution (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cytlid ( 95255 ) * on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:20AM (#13320999)
    Let's see... Geico had a fit because one of their competitors "bought" the word Geico as an adword so their ad would show up when they search Geico on Google? Is this correct?

    Easy way to fix that, take all references of "Geico" out of Google.

    On one hand, I can understand where Geico is coming from, but on the other hand, advertisers use their competitors names' in their ads all the time. Can State Farm sue because Geico says I can save 15% off their price? Where does this end? Are websites that compare prices illegal?

    I can see if you're avoiding mentioning someone else's trademark in your ad. But this boarders on dictating what you can and cannot search for.
    • Easy way to fix that, take all references of "Geico" out of Google.

      Yeah, I'd give 'em the CNet treatment. Google effectively gives away billions in free advertising because they'd prefer customer goodwill to having "bought" results. If I were google, I just might de-list companies that sue like that. Want to make sure you don't illegally use their copyright. As far as I can tell, the decision of the "Search King" case gives them that right.

  • this is using another company's name to advertise your products. wrong.

    now if something could be done about those sites that have lines of product names in "invisible" text just to bump their rankings...

    and while we're at it, how about offering the option to have user-defined filters always applied, for example unless I say otherwise I'd always like my Google searches to reject all sites that contain the phrase "compare prices for" .
    • "... using another company's name to advertise your products. wrong."
      I'd like to see this extended to political campaigns. Imagine how much more pleasant campaign season would be if political ads were prohibited from mentioning the competition? No more negative ads, no more mudslinging, a much improved s/n ratio.

  • Stupid, arbitrary feel-good restrictions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:26AM (#13321046) Homepage
    There is no good reason why someone shouldn't be able to run an ad that says, "we're cheaper than Geico, click here to find out how much you'll save by switching FROM Geico." Society is better off when we take off these arbitrary restrictions that keep cut-throat competition to a minimum by not allowing competitors to easily target each other. If they were trying to pass themselves off as Geico, that's one thing, but trademarks should not be an issue otherwise.

    This is why I hate lawyers. To anyone else, most cases would need last only a few hours. Then you have the lawyers who need to go through elaborate procedures, arguing technicalities, making mountains out of mole hills and all of that happy horse shit. What we need is a jury power called, "dismiss with extreme prejudice." If a company gets a few cases dismissed under those terms, then the court begins to charge a non-refundable fee everytime it has to review a case brought by a company or individual. Every honest victory then counts as a positive mark against those bad marks and when they're 1:1 the fee stops being charged.

    Those big on law theory wring their hands about stuff like people taking it to the streets. Well here's a novel suggestion, if the company abuses the courts like this, gets censured and then takes matters into its own hands... the government should storm its offices with police in full ninja gear, slam the people responsible head first into the wall while hand-cuffing them and charge them with murder in the first degree then give them a firing squad if convicted. If the government backs up the censure at every step of the way, the courts may have a chance to start reverting back to respectable institutions that serve the public rather than the loudest plaintiffs.

    • Re:Stupid, arbitrary feel-good restrictions (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yes, Anakin, but in the real world not everyone holds your opinion, which is why we have courts so things can be discussed in detail.
    • I would agree with your idea but there is one major problem: Joe Schmoe cannot afford to pay anywhere near the amount of penilty that would be required to have a chilling effect on large corporations. Thus we would end up with a system where once a large corporation brought up a suit against a Joe Schmoe, Schmoe would be forced to settle.

      The penilty would have to be proportional to total income, before taxes, costs, etc.. Then it might be fair.

      But that is just me.
    • Perhaps if you read the judge's opinion or any of the briefs, or anything else for that matter, you wouldn't get so agitated and make ridiculous statements. But that would make you one of "those big on law theory" people you so despise.

      That being said, the problem here isn't that a competitor cant make an ad saying "I'm cheaper than Geico", because they can provided there is no likelihood of confusion. (i.e. Subway TVs ads currently use both McDonald's and BigMac trademarks legally because there is no con
  • This should place the burden on the USPTO or copyright office or whatever.. if all online companies must comply with this sort of precendence, then there must be a web service or something that will allow website the ability to search for trademarks. This of course, would have to be corporate backed, if there were to be anything resembling snappyness to the whole thing, which just makes the whole matter that much messier.

  • I'm surprised they resorted to litigation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by white1827 ( 848173 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:38AM (#13321124) Homepage
    I use Adwords to advertise for my company. I'm kind of surprised Geico had to resort to litigation. We have the same issue all the time. Google quickly and efficiently removes the ads that use our trademark when we follow their trademark complaint [google.com] procedure.

  • Future problems (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Spacejock ( 727523 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:38AM (#13321127)
    What's to stop large companies trademarking all the words in their industry? If that happens, competitors couldn't place a Google Adwords advert using those terms, effectively shutting newcomers out of the market.

    Sure, people could sue and counter-sue, but large companies have deeper pockets.
    • Trademarks aren't worth much unless they get held up in court and
      1) defending every single word in the technical dictionary is just too expensive,
      2) you can't really trademark real words and
      3) most of them would have gotten thrown out anyway unless you could document that you actually use them a lot.

  • Actually, I think this ruling is not that bad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FearUncertaintyDoubt ( 578295 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:43AM (#13321167)
    According to the article, the ruling just says that Google can't use GEICO in the actual text of the ad. Trademark infringment is about confusion -- would having GEICO in the text of the ad lead someone to believe that it was an ad for GEICO? Quite possibly.
  • Adwords Marketing News posted about this a couple days ago. They analyzed what this really means for people who typically advertise on other trademark terms. So much is uncertain with the court systems, anything can happen.

    "Google's AdWords underwent a policy change in April 2004. Until then Google had respected requests from companies that asked it to prevent their marks from being available for sponsorship. Now Google only takes action when a trade marked term is used in the text of an ad - i.e. the

  • I have a website about upgrading Dell C-Series laptops and someone used my username "Stonent" as an Adword for a laptop repair service. I was irritated but after about a month the ad went away.
  • I understand the "we're better than Geico" implications... how can you stop people from looking for instances like that, even if it's a trademarked name you are looking for?

    But then again, people use Google like a phone book nowadays. Typing in Geico is a way to quickly find their web site. I myself do this quite a bit when searching for sites whose domain name approximates but is not a perfect match for the company name. In that way, it more closely approximates a dns search than a word search. In this lig

  • Google will most likely just change it terms of use, so that next time the advertiser will be sued instead of them.

    The small print text adds in newspapers with the same kind of expressions do not get the newspaper sued. Probably Google should talk with the Sun or something for their terms of use.

  • Slashdot (Score:2, Funny)

    by dotpavan ( 829804 )
    Slashdot: news for nerds, stuff that matters, now even better than Cnet, Register and Wired.com

    Statutory Warning: Cnet, Register and Wired are TM of the respective owners, and were used to beef up the ranking and get increased attention.

  • GEICO should go after the individal insurance companies using their trademarks, not Google, which is simply a conduit for commerce.

    There is a potential for a chilling effect on online ads. Perhaps GEICO has stiffed a few of its clients, for instance, and I might want to do a web site on that. Would I be prohibited from using text like "GEICO Stiffed Clients" in the text of the ad?

    Good bye free speech...

  • not a reversal (Score:5, Informative)

    by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @11:55AM (#13321820)
    This is a reversal for Google based on an earlier story.

    No, it's not a reversal. The court decided on one situation that had been left open by the earlier ruling.

    Apparently, displaying competitors' ads in response to a query for a trademark is permissible; the court ruled, however, that the competitors' ads may not contain the trademarked query terms.

    It seems to me that that strikes a pretty good balance. Allowing the trademarked query terms to appear in the ads carries too much risk for confusion, and it has little benefit for consumers.

    So,
    Cheap Car Insurance from Acme; click here for more info.
    is OK in response to a query for GEICO, but
    Acme is cheaper than GEICO; click here for more info.
    is not.

    However, even under the current ruling, the target of the ad link can still do price comparisons between Acme and GEICO. Consumers really don't lose anything through this ruling; the court just came up with a simple rule by which targeted ads can be made a little clearer and less confusing.

  • Evens out in the end (Score:3, Funny)

    by wuice ( 71668 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @12:02PM (#13321873) Homepage
    The bad news is we just lost our lawsuit and now have to cough up damages and legal fees. The good news is I just saved a bunch on my car insurance!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close