



Google Loses AdWords Case 274
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.
As a Google fan (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As a Google fan (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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.
Re:As a Google fan (Score:2)
=Smidge=
Re:As a Google fan (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
Effective Ad (Score:3, Insightful)
-M
Re:Effective Ad (Score:3, Funny)
Otherwise you may be considered to be misuing the trademark, and/or be considered to be using cocaine.
Re:As a Google fan (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
I believe that advertisements avoid naming the competition because:
Re:As a Google fan (Score:4, Funny)
Re:As a Google fan (Score:2)
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
Re:As a Google fan (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:As a Google fan (Score:3, Interesting)
The Pepsi side-by-side taste test ads that I've seen (in the US) refer to Coke.
There are also other Pepsi ads that refer to Coke, like the one where they keep changing the Coke vending machine sitting beside the Pepsi machine, and everyone keeps buying from the Pepsi machine.
(Off Topic bit) The powe
Re:As a Google fan (Score:3, Informative)
Re:As a Google fan (Score:2)
Lost its case, huh? (Score:5, Funny)
But (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But (Score:2)
We're just a couple of misunderstood jokers
Re:But (Score:2)
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.
Re:But (Score:2)
Are they sure... (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if this is going to broaden... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:I wonder if this is going to broaden... (Score:4, Informative)
(Thanks to Wikipedia)
Re:I wonder if this is going to broaden... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I wonder if this is going to broaden... (Score:4, Funny)
(OK I'd have to register '1.com' or something.. interesting idea though).
Explain this to me (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Explain this to me (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
GEICO
Save money over Geico. aff
freeinsquot.com
BZZT! WRONG! BZZT! WRONG! BZZT! WRONG! BZZT!
at least a vast over simplification (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
This is most likely the result of a reasoning along the lines of "a consumer is prepared for the eventuality that searching on Foo might turn up random ads, including ones that use competing marks in a legal manner. Further, a consumer is prepared for the eventuality that if he searches on Geico, he will get ads for Geico's competitors. W
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
However, this discussion is about search engine advertising. I just googled for Pepsi [msn.com] and found no advertisements for Coke that triggered from the keyword.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
However, this is Slashdot, where names like "killustrator" and "mikerowesoft" are considered original.
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
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.
Re:Explain this to me (Score:3, Insightful)
ACCEPTABLE AD:
Allstate Insurance
We can save you 20% over Geico's rates
www.allstate.com
UNACCEPTABLE AD:
Geico
Get cheaper car insurance
www.geico-compare.com
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
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)
Sheesh.
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
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.
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
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.)
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
Re:Explain this to me (Score:2)
I MUST RTFA I MUST RTFA... give me 100 lines.
So Geico... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So Geico... (Score:2)
Oh my personal boycott not goi
Don't be a fool... of course there's bad publicity (Score:2)
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)
Re:Using competitors names (Score:5, Informative)
That's why the "Pepsi Challenge" is between Pepsi and "some other drinks", or detergent is between whatever and "The market leading brand", etc.
Re:Using competitors names (Score:2)
Re:Using competitors names (Score:2)
I dunno I've never seen them compare themselves to a urinating horse, which pretty much sums up what American beer tastes like...
Compared to our own brand (Score:2)
Unfair Comparisons (Score:2)
Slashdot: More healthful than a stick in the eye!
GEICO (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
In the end I called and asked for his physical address. H
Insurance Isn't (Score:2)
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
Re:GEICO (Score:2)
Oh well, insurance here is cheap enough already. ($600 a year for two cars).
Re:GEICO (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GEICO (Score:5, Interesting)
Irony? (Score:4, Funny)
Why, oh
I also object.... (Score:3, Insightful)
... 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").
-theGreater.-or-
GEICO sues Progressive for placing said ad in the WSJ and thereby diluting the GEICO trademark.
Re:I also object.... (Score:2)
Re:I also object.... (Score:2)
Simple Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Absolutely (Score:2)
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.
The right decision IMO (Score:2, Insightful)
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" .
Re:The right decision IMO (Score:2)
Re:The right decision IMO (Score:2)
The case that Google won is more akin to having an ad for Company Y on the same page as the (correct) listing for Company X. This is entirely legal and even common in the case of Yellow Pages (since competitors tend to be listed right next to eachother).
Stupid, arbitrary feel-good restrictions (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Stupid, arbitrary feel-good restrictions (Score:2)
The penilty would have to be proportional to total income, before taxes, costs, etc.. Then it might be fair.
But that is just me.
Re:Stupid, arbitrary feel-good restrictions (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Burden (Score:2)
I'm surprised they resorted to litigation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm surprised they resorted to litigation (Score:2)
I'd say that that is two different things.
Future problems (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, people could sue and counter-sue, but large companies have deeper pockets.
Re:Future problems (Score:2)
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)
What this means for Adwords users (Score:2, Interesting)
Someone did this to me once. (Score:2)
it's all in how you use Google (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Change of terms of use (Score:2)
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)
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 not be going after Google (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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, is OK in response to a query for GEICO, but 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)
Re:Bah... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bah... (Score:5, Funny)
And yes, its you.
Re:Bah... (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like the trial has taken place, and the court ruled that having the trademark (Geico) in the ad is misleading, and could confuse people into thinking the insurance being sold is affiliated with Geico. So, that's not allowed.
You can disagree with the outcome, sure, but the judges' actions seem very reasonable: rule quickly in summary judgment on the obvious issues, defer the more complicated ones for a trial.
Re:Bah... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. Every court should always come up with the same conclusion. And in that spirit, we can probably save ourselves a lot of tax money by eliminating all of the higher courts and doing away with the entire appeals process. Whats the point of appealing? The second court should come up with the same conclusion as the first.
Re:Bah... (Score:2)