Slashdot Mirror
AXA sues Google over AdWords
Da Fokka writes "Insurance company AXA is suing Google in a french court because a search for 'AXA' results in links to their competitors. A similar claim was initially awarded but successfully appealed by Google. If this claim is successful, this could be quite a setback for Google's business model."
The last appeal (better described in an alternate story ) was overturned because all of the words involved were dictionary words, and that it was unrealistic to expect a trademark search for every AdWords sale.
However, there is no doubt that AXA isn't found in most dictionaries, certainly not English or French - so it would seem they actually have a good chance of loosing this lawsuit.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Why can't they just sue the company who's purchasing the ad, instead of suing Google?
Even in sue happy America this case would be dismissed. It's like suing a library because I went to look for say McDonalds and found that Burger King also sells hamburgers. McDonalds is mad wanting to bundle library with a default configuration whereby McDonald's information is installed in the library and cannot be removed once installed nor can it be collocated with other Hamburger joints. Now that McDonalds has the market captured it can now be the dominate player in the hamburger field (reminiscent of a browser pun everyone). So now that McDonalds has the default configuration of libraries setup, McDonalds can now expand to, say, French Fires - you now must eat vegetable fried fries with fake beef flavoring. Did this court also award any damages from Amazons one click shopping scheme? This is crazy I'll stop now...
I think it great to learn about similar companies it help the consumer out.
everybody on the results page, for causing Google to list them first? Here's hoping they don't sue Slashdot since one of those results might point here soon! *l*
This sig is certified free of self-referential humour!
I think the lawyers responsible for such litigation should be required by the judge to supply (for free to the public) a list of every trademarked word... and keep it updated in perpetuity, oh.. and have their fingernails pulled off for being such a pest.
meh
"Freedom" court. Please use the language that our lofty senators appointed for us.
If search engines become responsible for the accuracy of their searches, then that's going to become risky business, especially when everyone's always just a little lower in the rankings than they'd like to be.
Worse for Google is that an insurance company is going to have lots of money and can easily afford to mount a very strong case against them. Hopefully, Google will have some luck, but it sounds like the similar case won't stand to help them much.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
I'm trying to figure out how a court can actually hold Google RESPONSIBLE for advertisement for a business entity.
Google's primary purpose is INFORMATION, not the aforementioned advertisement.
If I'm looking for something to purchase, I'm generally more concerned with price & availability than who I buy FROM. It's in this area that Google shines, offering a plethora of various places to buy/rent from.
I would think this is an excellent opportunity for Google to make the distinction between their ACTUAL business plan and their PERCIEVED business plan.
Think about it, just because you've coined some obscure acronym for yourself or your business, does that mean it's Google's responsibility to insure that people find you during their search? Wow, nice way to shrink that ad budget.
Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
Nothing good can come of this sort of lawsuit. Google and other search engines should be free to have their results the way the Internet says.
The Scientology nuts are complaining that a search for "scientology" also results in anti-scientology sites. Should they be awarded damages too?
I don't think so.
The Cheese Stands Alone.
The biggest problem I see with international law is the conflict between established systems. Political animosity between two nations involved can only make it worse.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
They said that Google is diluting the copyright because customers might mistaken the adverstised services as being associated with AXA. (Yes, it's in an ad box and labeled as such, but that makes sense and has no place in the law.) People have sued pop-ups on the same grounds; an ad that popped up upon a visit to a website might seem connected to that website even though it is not. Therefore, this claim is not stupid outright but in this case it seems a little weak.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/24/202821 6&mode=thread
:)
"If this claim is successful, this could be quite a setback for Microsoft's business model."
Nice consistent unbiased reporting there, guys.
"Search engine company Google is suing themselves"
"If you Google on 'A9', you get a listing for one of our competitors," said a company spokesperson. "It's an outrage!"
when i go through the big phat yellow pages directory, looking for the "Blud E. Good Plumbing" phone number, i am subjected to other adverts of rival plumbing services. The Yellow pages are profiting from this, so why shouldn't google?
Thats what I'd do.
If I was responsible for google, I'd just ban the keyword AXA so nobody can find anything to do with AXA on the search engine at all.
AXA is expecting a search engine to market it's name, only if it has a monopoly on the results. Nobody wants to use a search engine which supplies results based on who has the biggest advertising budget, rather who has the more relevant content for the respective search.
Google should settle this by removing all AXA keywords and URLs, and to show the rest of the world they cannot be bullied into monopolistic advertising.
A quick search for 'Linux' brings up the following #1 sponsored link:
Linux News
Why is Windows cheaper than Linux?
Get all the facts Now!
www.microsoft.ca/getthefacts
So can Linus sue now? Seriously, I hope the courts don't rule against Google. It's not like the nasty ads that were being placed over other ads on company websites, it's just a sponsored link.
Alternately, why not just make it obvious by adding "non-competitive" to the adwords section.. so all these bozo's will click it, and have results filtered so that no other adwords competition shows for the highest setting.. while those who click "competitive" will show up as the action is designed to be... course everyone will search in "competative mode only".. ALSO, why not just make google a social club (free membership, click wrap), then you can just tell them its private and they should go away.
meh
People who bought this book also bought....
Isn't it perfectly legal to say that you don't want to do business with someone because of moral/other objections?
What happens if google just removed any and all references to AXA on the web?
They could damage any global corp, and destroy any web business that wasn't already a name (amazon).
This is their scary power, scary power indeed.
What They are saying is that their competitors ads / links shouldnt be displayed,But its akin to television..The tv channel could give a particular product a coverage :if the competitor doesnt want to lose out, he may place in that very same program.Thats the way to go.Not sue like this ,quite childlishly.
Why does yahoo do this
In the forced localized version of Google here in Australia, all I see is a) AXA official web sites b) An ad for a local mortgage firm. No compeditors. Obviously the validility of this lawsuit varies from country to country.
In the interests of full disclosure: I am an AXA Australia shareholder.
...and on the sponsored ads, every one of them had 'AXA' in the title, but didn't seem to be related to the company itself. Are sponsored links different from regular links in that the companies give Google the title that'll show up? It seems like the only way to actually solve this may be to force Google to check for trademarks in titles, but that is a LOT of work, and probably is only feasible if a company assertively places its name in "the list."
Often when i search for one thing i get adds for something else. Not that i care that much, but its just a bit silly :)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Let's take a step back for just a second. Std Disclaimer: IANAL, but I play one on /.
If "AXA" wins, this means that using its name is forbidden, unless the company gives its approval beforehand. This imposes an undue restriction on freedom of speech, since Google is certainly not the only forum in which AXA is discussed and/or searched. Will this company sue, let's say, every newspapers or forums that discuss insurance companies and/or policies? Unlikely.
A few years ago, AXA may have argue its case by saying that it was 'undue competition', since France had laws prohibiting comparative commercials (Product A is better than product B because of...). But this is not the case anymore and comparative commercials are now legal in France.
Google may also argue that AdWords do not 'target' AXA, since -- AFAIK -- they are generated automatically. AXA is an insurance company (this is public knowledge). Therefore, a Google search on, say 'life insurance' would return pretty much the same AdWords results.
Therefore, I think AXA does not have a case. I also believe they know it, but that some over-zealous jerk in its Legal Dept decided to press the case anyway, just to make a point. They are just throwing good money out the window.
This may seem surprising, but French courts have proven in the past to be remarkably reasonable when it came to the Internet (Yahoo! 'nazi' case aside) and the previous decision is a case in point, since AXA lost it.
I fully expect Google to fight this all the way to the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation), if need be. And I expect them to win.
Just my 0.02 Euros...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Think about it: words in the dictionary vs. trademark names, which one wins?
All this means that the competitors of Axa, who are now buying the keyword "Axa", would have to buy some other keyword likely to be used when searching for insurance / financial advisor services.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
are at it again... The people they need to go after are the ones using the AXA trademark in their keywords metas and gateway pages.
Google has no control over this.
If this is about purchasing the AXA keyword, they need to bid a little higher. This stupid behaviour is typical of insurance companies and banks, both traditionally behind the times with regard to the internet.
l8,
AC
It seems to me that websites should fall under the jurisdiction of the country they are hosted from. People who connect to the server should be subject to the laws of their individual country. This would prevent people like Sklyarov from being arrested for doing something that isn't illegal in their own country.
Disable searches for "AXA" altogether.
Hate me!
If this claim is successful, this could be quite a setback for use of common sense in the world. Well, in the US anyway. Also quite a setback for people who still think that there is some sense in the world. For the rest of us, just a short sarcastic laugher in the midst of this coding slavery.
I think this was pretty standard practice at one point, to put your competitors names as triggers for your Adword advert. A competitor tried to do that to us, which we thought was a bit scummy but we didn't have the resources to do anything about it. Someone pointed us at Google's compaints procedure: we wrote to them, and after a long delay the offending advert was taken down. I found another article which implies that they will be reversing this policy and allowing you to bid on anybody's name and trademark, and take down adverts only where a particular jurisdiction makes it awkward for them (i.e. outside of US and Canada). This sucks of course but TBH I'm not sure said competitor would have got many hits from our name at the time. Now I suspect they might but this time we'd be able to do something about it :-)
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
So if someone asks me what AXA is and I don't give the information that AXA want will I also be facing a suit ? We best all keep our mouths shut in the AXA inspired future.
That's great!
Excellent prose.
Have a cigar!
I get the feeling that this may be Google's fault for not recognizing AXA as a brand name. They can certainly reject adword ads if they think the purchaser is violating a trademark.
Try doing a search for "American Express" and see what ads come up on Google.
Read any good sonnets lately?
A better analogy is that you opened the phone book's white pages to look up McDonald's, and saw a Burger King ad right next to the McDonald's listing.
I've RTFA but frankly, there's not much information in there. Still, I guess that the reason why Axa sued is that the ad links mentioned the brand name "AXA". So maybe the proper analogy would be that you opened the white pages to look for McDonald's and see an ad for "McDonald's something" with the address and phone# of a BK.
Still not sure that this would justify a lawsuit but at least it's not that clear-cut.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
Now correct me if I'm not understanding this right:
If these are the premises, then the conclusion must be that AXA are suing on the grounds of their own baseline incompetence in web-promotion.
Also, Google has deep pockets, and there are plenty of litigious assholes out there...
You mean like those assholes who would defeat Microsoft purchasing "Linux" AdWords?
to me this suing thing seems so very pathetic, why can't they ask google to fix the thing instead of suing them ?
If you go to www.google.fr and search for AXA, no ads show up (anymore). So it looks like Google pulled the AdWord already. Do they feel guilty then?
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
I don't see any problem. The Google search engine is doing exactly as it should - it is finding matching/close references within its website database. It just makes sense that the engine will find competitors/similar sites. A lawsuit over a service that is performing as it should should be dismissed immediately (with a warning to the industry not to try this stunt again).
This seems ridiculous:
If I went to a computer shop and asked for an Intel processor, would the shop break the law if they told me that AMD also makes processors?
Search Term: AXA
Total matches : 0.
...to "would you like freedom fries?" a year ago was, "only if you put the yellow, ignorant cheese on the burger."
Here in part of the United States, there is a store called Meijer. Its kind of a huge Wal-Mart with a food section for those that arent familiar. At any rate, when you check out, your cash register reciept is always accompanied by a coupon "strip" with coupons for a good number of the competitors of the items you JUST bought. For instance, if I go to Meijer and buy Armor hot dogs, im likely to get a coupon when checking out for Oscar Mayer hot dogs. Buy Heinz mustard and youre likely to get a coupon for French's when you check out. Its like that for everything from toothpaste to baked beans. These competitors buy these ads from Meijer as I understand it with specific instructions as to when customer buy product A, give them my coupon. In 10 years of shopping there, ive never gotten a coupon for a product I just bought, its always a competitor. Its not only the Googles and Yellow Pages of the world doing things like this.
Now when you search for AXA, one of the first results is:
"AXA sues Google over AdWords - Slashdot - 35 minutes ago"
The Scrabble dictionary is a sub-set of the Merriam-Webster dictionary - which doesn't list axa as a word.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Open up the yellow page phone book you have next to your phone. Look up any topic like "lawyers" and you'll find not one lawyer but a whole gaggle. Now AXA would have you believe this is wrong. When you open up the phone book looking around for something and you stumble across AXA it should be the only available financial institution? Is this what AXA really believes?
Why are companies afraid of competition? Because it makes them work a little bit harder? Shesh. Instead of suing Google who about count this as a blessing (aka free advertising) and get your marketing people to figure out away to capture the attention of people who when given a choice would want to choose AXA?
Desipte the likelyhood that you are simply throwing out flame bait, I felt I would respond.
,for now it is time to sleep.
Why shouldn't one see their competior's come up first on an indpendant list with no binding contract between the lister and the listees? And especially so when the one on top does have a contract with the one doing the listing?
Regarding JewWatch; the pagerank system does not indicate what sites that google feels are superior sites, it ranks by popularity. If JewWatch is linked to by more sites than actual jewish sites, why should it not be listed first? Moving it around when it is not an illegal site would damage google's credibility.
Furthermore, there is nothing in google's policy stating that they would remove sites if someone gathers 50,000, or any number, of 'online signatures'(also known as 'the most pointless and ineffective political tool ever').
Someone at google, without the proper authority to do so, replied to an inquiry about JewWatch with a response akin to "If enough petitions are gathered, w e will look into it". You can search on snopes.com for more details,
Lawyers don't sue people.
People sue people.
I'm fed up with companies trying to assert things that vaguely might belong to them. IMO you don't have rights to people not using your name. I've seen plenty of comparison adverts in the UK for cars, and that's perfectly legal.
What's their big problem anyway? I search for Axa because I want Axa and get some results for someone else? Well, maybe the "someone else" does it better and I might discover that? That, is what we in the free world call competition. If not, I'll find the site PDQ.
Business is business.
I include meta tags of competitors in my HTML to divert search engines. It's called competition.
Summary: Tough titty!
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
For litigious bastards, displacing the previous litigious bastards who will henceforth be known simply as bastards.
What? You guys can't /. Google? It's still up!
What about the Greek sorority that has this as their letters? Maybe they should step up to the plate as well.
What incentive does Google have to produce "accurate" results? Merely financial. The fact that google produces what's considered to be dependable search results given some search terms seems totally irrelevant. Google is beholden only to its investors (and it's still privately held, so the list probably isn't enormous). Google's ranking algorithm(s) are susceptible to abuse, and perhaps a competitor of AXA has done just so. But I wouldn't care if Google intentionally produced AXA's competitors as results for searches on "AXA". What right has anyone to demand that Google produce more accurate results (presumes that searching for "AXA" means that AXA's website is the desired result)?
Here's the UK Google Page, snapshotted for your pleasure:
X A. png
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/deeppurple/GoogleA
Showing non-AXA sites using the AXA trademark illegally. I don't know if Google are registered in the UK though which might explain why Google France is getting sued.
Google aren't the ones to sue. They are the ones to subpoena to get the advertisers' information, and then sue the advertisers for misuse of a trademark.
Why don't they sue them as well?
" Why can't they just sue the company who's purchasing the ad, instead of suing Google?"
1) Google has more money.
2) Google is an easy target.
3) Suing Google garners more publicity.
Your question makes the assumption that litigants/claiments are being wholly reasonable in their intent to have their grievances redressed and dont mereley want payola, regardless of the damadge it does to the information industry.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
This is just stupid! Google does not define the context of your search. When I search for 'AXA', maybe I am not looking for your stupid company. Maybe I was looking for the name of my favorite stock quote, or my favorite hemorrhoid cream!
They have no claim to 'AXA' any more than Microsoft has claim to the word 'Windows' when used outside of the specific context that applies to their software.
When you search on google using our product's name (LLBLGen), you get a lot of pages and at the right side 2 or 3 adds. Most of them are competitors. As google has a set of rules the words used in the AddWords system have to comply with, we got a little annoyed: competitors seem to use our brand as a search keyword for their adds.
.NET consultancy firm was also among the adds. This was weird, as they didn't sell a competing product. I contacted them and asked why they used our brand in their AddWords keyword list. They responded that they didn't. It appears as if Google uses keywords from the top search result list entry (or entries) and with those keywords enlist adds.
One day, a Dutch
We contacted Google about this issue and we asked them to remove the brand name from the AddWords wordlists of these competitors. We had to fax information, we did, twice. We asked time and time again when they would take action. They never did.
Being a small company, we don't have the money to start a big lawsuit against a foreign company so they will take action on this.
For the people who think this is a non-issue or similar to a lot of real-life cases: it's illegal to trigger advertisements based on searches for competing products, i.e.: you are not allowed to set a trigger on your add when a brand name of a competitor is used in the search form.
It is also different from yellow pages or searches for the kind of product, like 'Bed' or 'O/R mapper' which then enlists perhaps your product as no.1. and a list of competitor's adds at the right.
From the google-user's perspective, it's a great feature. I can also understand that google is not eager to take action as it might result in lower add-sales. From the owner of a brand it's however not that great. If we wouldn't have been in a similar situation (and every brand owner is in the same situation, actually) I probably would think "so what?", however google is a starting point for a lot of people when they want to learn more about a given brand (even if the official site of that brand is easy to find) and the product(s) related to that brand. From a marketing's perspective it's then a little sad when people who are willing to find out more about your product are confronted by adds from competitors at that same spot. If there wouldn't have been a law against this, it would have been 'oh, well, that's life', however there IS a law against this, and until a law is withdrawn, people, how sad it might sound, have to obey it. Also google.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
er, I saw only one possible "anti-semitic" website in my search for jew.......and there is a link on the top of the page: http://www.google.com/explanation.html Read it. it explaqins your supposed problem with google. your complaint is spurious. In the interests of full disclosure I admit to beng a Jew. :P
This comes down to rewards, really. AXA goes after Google, because they are worth billions, and can pay out large sums of money if they are sued and lose. AXA should be suing their competitor for faulty advertising (by linking their products and services to the AXA name). AXA is going after the wrong goose because they suspect they can railroad a court into thinking Google is responsible for the advertising it distributes. In any newspaper in the world, if you advertise, you are responsible for the content of the ad, not the publisher. Google, therefore, is nothing but a medium and has strict limits to liability, and I'm pretty sure a competant team of laywers can successfully argue this point, and win. Publishing companies are protected from huge lawsuits for publishing false advertising claims (within reason), because publishers are in less of a position to test the accuracy of claims than those making them; they are being paid for a delivery service only and they do not support the accuracy of advertising; how could they?
IANAL, but this is my take on it: AXA has made a huge mistake, and they are going to wind up with nothing (nothing, minus legal fees), and they are feeding their competitor eventual legal advantage by going after the wrong goose. AXA, therefore, is sly, but quite possibly stupid.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Having said that, I believe its wrong for AXA to sue (or should have to sue) over this. Google should have the good sense to settle such issues via an ombudsman or similar remedy. In my example, Google would tell Podunc sorry, but the AdWord 'AXA' mimics a trademark, can only be used by AXA.
Now, if AXA sued Google without any attempt to resolve the issue outside of the courts, then AXA deserves to be /.'d into oblivion. Its getting real old how companies are turning any transgression into a revenue stream.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
The problem is, people aren't searching for "insurance company", they are searching for AXA. THis is more analagous to looking up your business name in the white pages, and having phone numbers of your competitors underneath your listing.
Search for "AXA" on google, and the first match is AXA.
If I go into a store and ask to see an ipod mp3 player. Im going to be taken to the section of the store that has all their mp3 players, and then get the sales pitch for rio or whoever else.
Certainly the store cant be liable for merchandizing something near another product, which in the case of this adword, if you seach for x you also get y.
I guess I just dont get it.
It is simply amazing how 'nitpicky' people can really get. Sueing Google over a search result. They should be happy that they are at least first on the list. If you search on msn.com, they are 13th, with their competitors listed first. Of course Yahoo and Lycos list them like google does, first on the list, while Excite has them at #6.
Are the folks at Axa planning on filing suit against these other search engines as well? I think google gave them an excellent spot at the top of their search food chain for the criteria.
I certainly hope the folks at Google read this and use the other search engine results in their defense.
Regards,
Jeff Kirkland
Looks like Google dropped the ads in American Samoa.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
::Sigh:: This is why it should be legal to own a real BFG.
I get some scientology and christian winger ads on my site.
Always seems to be a good reminder to point out the inanity of such endeavors.
+&x
Google posts paid advertising links (on the sides and above normal search results) always using a different background color, and specifically noting that those results are "sponsored links".
The fact that Google specifically separates sponsored links from it's normal search results is one of the reasons why Google has as high a popularity as it does.
About this lawsuit The AXA company is suing Google for selling both the trademarked term, "Direct Assurance" and the companies non-dictionary name, "AXA".
Google sold the non-dictionary term AXA to competitors of AXA. This has nothing to do with standard search results, and everything to do with advertising. If AXA were a dictionary word in English or French then there's a decent chance that Google would win the case (like the last case).
While I personally feel there is no validity to a lawsuit over selling a trademarked term made of 'dictionary' words, I see potential for liability where you are selling terms that are not otherwise found in the dictionary.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
"This is, in fact, exactly what trademark laws are meant to prevent"
No, Trademark laws are meant to make sure there is no confusion between you and your competitors.
To claim this causes confusion is a stretch. If you come into my soda fountain (which has a Coke and Pepsi sign in the window) and you ask for a Coke, and I say, "Rather than Coke, please try this Pepsi. It tastes better, is more refreshing, and its delicious. That's not a trademark infringement.
Its simply advertising. If you're Ford, you're allowed to say "Chevy Sucks, Buy Ford" in your commercials (the wisdom of doing this is not the issue, simply thinking of examples), and that's not a trademark infringement.
Trademarks aren't copyrights. You can't prevent someone from mentioning your trademark. If you don't like it, there is a word in American English we use: "TOUGH!".
Hope this helps.
Yes, it's both a common spelling error (not just me), and it's also something that needs correcting, yet I've never gotten it through my thick skull.
--
Allen Zadr (posting AC for this extreme off-topic post).
Every Time you look up something in the yellow pages DIRECTORY, you see lots of ads for competitors as well. Guess what, the person who paid the most gets the biggest ad! This is a business you get what you paid for. AXA didn't pay anything to Google, they should not have any expectations on how they get ranked or who else shows up on a search results page. If Google was a part of their marketing model, then they should pay then some money and get an ad.
Lets sue everyone for any concievable reason. This is killing productivity in any form of industry. More time spent on liability worries than on putting out a product. In every frivolous lawsuit, the plaintif should be charged double the asked for damages. Since half of all civil cases are frivolous, this might reduce court congestion.
An open season on lawyers might help too.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
See: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/nukepop/147.html (for example).
Ironically, Google may be in trouble because their search engine is too good. In another search engine, if you search for "AXA" you expect to get a bunch of useless sites. When you search in Google, you expect to get useful information. Therefore if someone does a search for AXA in Google, they fully expect that their results are related to AXA. If Google searches were bad, then there would be no confusion because users would expect to get irrelevant results, and there wouldn't be much of a case.
-- Pot is safer than Beer
interestingly typing AXA gives different results from typing AN AXA even though google spits out the message: ... "an" is a very common word and was not included in your search
but including "an" in your search invalidates the adwords which is good for me.
- a hotel in Prague
- "Ancient Xizang Autonomous", a PRC euphemism for Tibet
- Alpha Chi Alpha college fraternity
- airport code for Anguilla
- medical abbreviation for Auxiliary Artery
- a book by John Dakin
It seems AXA Group cannot claim pure and exclusive use of those three letters.Just remove France from being indexed, since it has a legal system that is hostile towards it. I could just hear it now "Zii Basstards 'have removed uus from dare seaarch engine!" Retreat!!!
i haven't seen such a load of knee-jerk apologists since talk radio came out to defend bush against the claims of clarke's book ....
look guys: if google were just reporting on its picture of the web, as perceived objectively by some algorithm or other, then maybe you'd all have a point. but they're actively seeking to make money by selling keywords and by placing ads on specific keyword searches. they need to act responsibly. they have recognized this in the past.
what amazes me most about this dialogue here though is: i get the impression folks here actually READ those dang ads. now that's the eye opener, cuz i'm sure i've never clicked on one, and my mind just avoids them.
AXA
AXA
AXA
AXA
AXA
AXA
That ought to work! :-)
doggone lameness filter thinks i'm shouting... and now it wants longer lines that so here's a longer line
Clam up about that Xenu character already.
axa-insured.com seems to be available...
Quick, someone register it so you, too, can be sued for no apparently obvious or legit reason!
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Search engine is like an automated yellow page book but lot bigger. This would be like pepsi taking an advertisement out on the listing of coke in yellowpages. Its not a trademark violation. When someone asks you were a mcdonalds is, and you say there's burger king down the street, are you committing a trademark violation?
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
When I first saw the article on Slashdot, I was tempted to stop buying those AXA breakfast cereals because of this litigation. Then I looked closer, and found that there is also an insurance company by the very same name! I had never heard about them before.
The AXA brand name is owned by Cerealia Foods, operating from Scandinavia. Maybe Cerealia Foods should join AXA (insurance) in their lawsuit against Google, to prevent other breakfast insurance companies from registering their unique name?
News results for axa - View all the latest headlines
AXA sues Google over AdWords - Slashdot -
You will forget this sig before you next see it
...as a neutral locator of information.
Google have a policy of pulling ads when a complaint is made from a trademark holder; we have had our competitors' names disallowed as AdWords after they asked Google (note we were not using their names in the adverts). Other competitors also advertise under our name.
I don't know why that wasn't done, or if it was done why it wasn't sufficient for AXA in this case. It's not reasonable to expect Google to do trademark infringement searches on prospective AdWords, and they can't just make a big list of trademarks - besides the jurisdictional issues, there would be non-infringing uses of even a non-generic word such as AXA (e.g. if the BBC wanted to advertise their news coverage of AXA).
Indeed, I don't think such ads *should* be pulled - there should just be a prohibition on using the trademarked term in your ad. The point is, it is not *Google* that is providing the trademarked term, its the user. Its would be like going into a shop, and asking for a Pepsi, and the shop not being allowed to say we dont have it, how about a Coke.
Now if the makers of \/1@G*r@ (Pf!z/3r) could go after those spammers for trademark infringement...
..searching for "Axa" would just return "No results found".
:-)
See how Axa likes them cookies!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Re-read what's happening.
It has to do with the paid links on the RH side of google. When you look for AXA, a paid link for a competitor pops up on the RH side.
Do you understand why you're misinformed now?
Nope, this is a simple case of trademark dilution, not about competition. Well, the bit about "AXA" is, I'm dubious about the other term which looks like generic English.
AXA's trademark is being used on Google without their permission, in a field related to their own - financial services. Quite clearly this is misuse of a trademark.
AXA might be going about this the wrong way, but what if they asked Google to remove them and they didn't? Going to court is the ONLY thing that AXA can do - they have to protect their trademark or they could lose it.
Google have only themselves to blame if they had prior warning of this issue. Hopefully this will make them think twice about their planned "Misuse other companies' trademarks for your own good" scheme as well.
This isn't "Free Advertising" for AXA at all. It is cheap, illgotten advertising for a gaggle of small fry companies and competitors who are misusing it.
Want a crappy analogy? You run a crappy double glazing company called "Bob's Glazing". You get very few customers, but a local competitor "MegaGlaze 3000" gets tonnes (for whatever reason). You decide to place an ad in Yellow Pages saying "MegaGlaze 3000", with your own phone number, in order to use their good name to get business for yourself.
I just don't see what the violation is for google to suggest alternatives in the paid link section.
Neither do you; I suspect you don't understand the article fully and therefore are shooting from the hip without a full understanding of the facts.
This is another one of those lame court cases that will go no where... Google isnt purposely putting competition advertisements on searches for other companies, the competitors are putting advertisements on their competitors search results. Shouldn't they be sueing the competition for copyright infringement? If they are really concerned about copyright infringement, they should sue every page on the internet that mentions their name or trademark.
"but that makes sense and has no place in the law."
I forgive you this incomprehensible message because I'm guessing english is perhaps a 3rd or 4th langauge for you.
Google's search results are not "paid for". In this sense it means that the results are fair and everyone has a good crack at the whip. Paid "Ad's" are not search results they are keyword search targetted, They are also clearly seperated from the real search results and are unobtrusive.
...
It seems to me that AXA are trying to sue Google because they aint happy with their search ranking. Could this be a new frontier in influencing search results by threatening legal proceedings?
I think that google should under no circumstances allow anybody to influence their search ranking results directly through paid advertising, suing or otherwise. In the end allowing this to happen would be its downfall.
Of course there are other ways of influencing googles search results (we all know about the litigious bastards episode!). But these tricks of the trade are available to everyone, Google's search algorithm will evolve and be tweaked all the time to filter out blatent abuse. So long as everybody has the same chances it will remain fair.
And thats how I see it.
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
No.
Not search... Adverts (explanation at linked post).
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
"AXA's trademark is being used on Google without their permission, in a field related to their own - financial services. Quite clearly this is misuse of a trademark."
Trademarks aren't like copyrights, that's is, you can't prohibit someone from saying "Coca Cola".
If I go to my insurance agent and I say, "Tell me about AXA", and he says "Here's info on them, and also, here's some info on their competitor", that's okay. Its not a dilution of copyright.
The search results returned the correct response. They pointed to AXA. However, in addition, Google is also showing links to their competitors. They're not claiming they're one and the same, they're just saying "Here's some other links we've been paid to show you".
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I would not try to mess with google if i was them. IANAL but maybe google could simply delete all pointers to AXA pages in their directory but the ones that point to detractor pages. A quick search would then bring pages like "How AXA exploits their workers" and similar pages only. Being included in google search is a priviledge, not a right.
Would you believe AXA?
This sig no verb.
"Direct" and "Assurance" can both be found in a dictionary, and therefore should both be available to anybody who wants to pay a search engine for them (I'm not disagreeing with you here)
pretty soon we won't be able to use any words or combinations of letters at all, because they're trademarked... schools will have to stop making us write research papers because we'll be comparing competing companies...
oh no! we'll actually have to compete with somebody... but I wanted my monopoly :cry:
It wasn't a Senator, it was a representative. He was the head of the committee that oversaw the congessional services. Yep, some congresspeople oversee foreign relations or appropriations, or defense, and this guy ran the lunchroom. And he wanted a photo op, so he changed the lunchroom menu. Do you remember the French response? "They're Belgian."
I hope he's happy that he used up his 15 minutes of fame trying to offend our allies and lowering the level of public discourse. I don't even remember his name.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
European courts are less concerned about laws then they are about preserving bureacracy and tradition. Its the one thing I despise about all of western europe .
Isn't that like suing the phone company because when someone looks up a business in the Yellow Pages, their competitors are on the page as well? Should Coke be able to sue the YP when (a completely contrived example) a Pepsi ad is listed under "Soft Drinks" along with Coke? What if the ad for Pepsi says "twice as many people drink Pepsi as Coke?" Is the YP liable for this if it is untrue?
What is the justification that would require Google, a search engine, to filter each and every brand name for its validity or relationship with every other? This doesn't seem to be an attack on their business model as much as on common sense. It makes about as much sense as suing the browser makers or monitor manufacturers for creating a way to view this situation.
Xesdeeni
that just do not work.
The fact of the matter is, to advertise on Google, you have to specifically:
a) choose one or more keywords you want to show up on
b) create the title for your ad
c) create the body for your ad
d) remember that in addition, if you are using another company's name in your link, you must write 'affiliate'. This of course assumes that you are actually allowed to use their name and to represent them on the website that is being linked. Thus, Google admits (with this requirement) that people have and do abuse trademark law.
The advertisements that were put up:
a) have AXA in the title/body of their ads
b) possibly even paid for the keyword "AXA"
Those two things are not automatically bad in themselves, even if the creators of those ads are not affiliates, but then c:
c) the ads tell you nothing about anything except that they are 'AXA' and 'insurance.'
The correct analogy is that a competitor, angry customer, etc. whoever, buys a phonebook ad in the same keyword (category) as a company, say "Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs!" Let's see, they make the ad appear in the same category ("restaurant"), and what does the ad say?
Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs (title)
Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs, Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs, Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs (body)
CALL 823-233-2901 (instead of the url obviously, since it's a phone book.)
THIS IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM THAT THE TRADEMARKS ARE SUPPOSED TO FIGHT AGAINST!
A correct Google ad would be:
a) keyword is AXA? fine
b) AXA in the title? fine
c) AXA in the body? fine
but the body and text should say that they are competitors to AXA, instead of just "AXA".
d) "Why buy from AXA?" title
"We were ranked above them in 3 of
4 major ranking sites. click here." body
http://www.insurance.com
You can't just plaster a competitor's trademark on a bulletin board without any context. When people see a trademark they assume the company behind the trademark is who they see. They are allowed to think so because of strong trademark laws!
In this case, consumers become EVEN MORE CONFUSED because the "Sponsored Ads" text imply that SOMEBODY PAID FOR THE ADS and THESE ADS ARE NOT PART OF THE SEARCH RESULTS BUT ARE ADS, thus making them feel confident of clicking on an AD because ADS = you know the company is responsible for them, right?
In fact, customers searching for AXA would trust the Google Ads (Because they are implied to be approved and the trademarks' of their owners) than the TOP LINK OF THE SEARCH RESULTS because everybody knows they can't trust information regular web sites, but we can trust google!
The solution is to remove those ads. It's true. Especially since it seems that another post said that AXA company itself did not appear in search results on the first page at all, thus of course making customers put more trust in the SPONSORED ADS because heck, search results are just search results and axa did not even show up, but ADS are run by the companies right? So the whole first page had nothing about the actual AXA company from what I understand, until now. But even now, AXA should continue with the suit so that ads, which are thought of us definitive representations of a company, stop being so misleading to the point that it says McDonalds on the ads and links to manybillionsserved.com but is actual the burger king's home page. COME ON!
Cover your eyes and click this link!
Why can't they just sue the company who's purchasing the ad, instead of suing Google?
someone that performs a search for "AXA" is probably searching for information regarding the company. we can be relatively confident that this search query was brought about by AXAs financial investments in developing its name.
for those who suggest that Google shouldn't be the target of the lawsuit, please keep in mind that google actually profits when AXA's competitor's ads are clicked, and that is why i think both google and the competitor are culpable.
it gets a little complicated when the search query is for "AXA competitor"
Fire Z Missiles! I'm rooting for Google. Figures in France.
In the FRENCH law it is forbbidden to sell Nazi memorabelia or to praise Natism. Whether you do not like it or not , or whether the US law is different do nNOT matter. What matters is that yahoo, displayed Nazi memorabelia and allowed sales within France. And as far as I know since by reselling something forbidden or allowing the reslling you make yourself guilty by association. Thus the Nazi Yahoo case was PERFECTLY grounded on the side of french law and french court.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Suing magazines that do comparative studies of a family of products? Maybe Consumer Reports had better start watching their back. Good grief! The gall of some people! Mentioning competitors in the same web page/article/paragraph/sentence.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I have the same advice that I did last time the french sued google: Just don't let the french use Google. It will both punish them for bringing trivial suits and dissuade others from following thier example.
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
"Direct" and "Assurance" can both be found in a dictionary, and therefore should both be available to anybody who wants to pay a search engine for them (I'm not disagreeing with you here)
:cry
That is a ridiculous comment. You might as well say the letters A and X are taught in many primary schools therefore they should be available to anyone who wants to pay a search engine for them.
oh no! we'll actually have to compete with somebody... but I wanted my monopoly
Yes, see how worked up the Slashbots get about trivial issues, but it's a different question when another organization does it.
Actually comparative advertising is allowed in Germany, under certain circumstances. However, comparative advertising and trademark infringement are two different animals.
A search for 'Provek' a project management training company brings up an advert by Pearce Mayfield
A search for 'iRacks' a hosting company brings up FDC Servers.net
From Google's AdWord trademark policy:
- As a courtesy, we are willing to perform a limited investigation of reasonable complaints. When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, our review is limited to ensuring that the advertisements at issue are not using the trademarked term as a keyword trigger. If they are, we disable those keywords from the ad campaign.
For example, this is why you only see eBay advertising on the AdWord 'ebay'. Why go after Google? If an AdWord infringes on a trademarked word, they'll remove it.Keyword lists in Adwords should not contain trademarks or trade names that that the advertised company does not own, if the trade name or trademark identifies a competitor. Trade names that don't identify competitors should be allowed. Google does not have an automatic way of enforcing these kind of rules (if they do exist), something of this nature would require a lot of human intervention. Maybe Google should make the subscriber liable for trade name and trademark violations, that way competitors would have to sue the companies that are responsible for the abuse in the first place.
TallGreen CMS hosting
Axa sues Google in trademark row
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
On that basis it seems a stupid suit.
Google sold the non-dictionary term AXA to competitors of AXA
Did they? Here is what I see happening: Google sells advertisement and (BrandA) has a (typeofproduct) that many companies buy Google's ads for. Now, Google is well within their rights to sell ads so that when someone searches for (typeofproduct) they may find not only (BrandA)'s ad but also (BrandB - Z). If the search had been for '(BrandA) + (typeofproduct)' there would be no problem because, as has been pointed out, this happens all the time in advertising.
The problem occurs when the search is for (BrandA) and nothing else, especially if (BrandA) is a trademarked term not used in any other form. This seems to allow (BrandB - Z) to cash in on (BrandA)'s name recognition buy purchasing ads to be displayed on the search for (BrandA). Allowing someone to purchase an ad based on the search for someone else's trademark does seem like a questionable tactic, especially if (BrandA) doesn't have an ad (they may be forced to purchase an ad they otherwise would not have or lose business).
But we all know that (BrandA) sells (typeofproduct), so really, the question is can Google show ads based on (typeofproduct) that (BrandA) sells when someone does a search with the single term '(BrandA)'? It seems silly to me to ask Google to pretend they don't know (BrandA) is selling (typeofproduct) when everyone else knows this.
In my mind, all that is happening is Google see's you're looking for a particular brand of product and they provide relavent links, but also they are saying "Well, I happen to know that (BrandA) sells (typeofproduct), here is a list of other people who sell (typeofproduct)." When you walk into a store and ask for "(BrandA)'s (typeofproduct)" is the clerk supposed to ignore all knowledge of (BrandB - Z) if he doesn't have (BrandA) in stock?
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
IANAL and I am trying to understand the legal basis of AXA's case, and in general the theory that search engine operators have any legal obligation to anyone whatsoever. If someone asks you where they can get a Big Mac, and you give them directions to Burger King instead of McDonalds, apparently McDonalds can sue you. WTF???
If I search Google for "Chevrolet" - I find links to exactly what I'm searching for. In the 'AdWords' sections, I see affiliate links (these are places where I can buy a Chevrolet automobile, although they are not exclusive Chevy dealerships). I do NOT find any links to Ford, Lincoln, Mitsubishi or Mazda.
The use of the 'AdWord', Chevrolet, by anyone besides Chevrolet or GM is questionable, however - the places that purchased those AdWords have the right to use the name of the product they are selling, "Chevrolet".
If there is some inherent need for me to find out about something other than Chevrolet, then I should rightly be searching, car, automobile or auto (the service I want, not a specific brand).
Similarly, there wouldn't have been a question had these ads been purchased by companies that had a fair-use right to use the term, AXA. Such as an Independant Insurance Broker that sells AXA as one choice among many.
The question comes down to how much research should Google be forced to do before taking money to sell me an 'AdWord'? I think everyone is in agreement that the use of dictionary words (at least independant words) should not require research. However, if a word is not in the dictionary, the requirement for 'proof of trademark' or proof of fair-use should be present.
The fact that Google seems to do no such search, when it is expected of them (this expectancy was established by their initial loss in the Travel Agency case).
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Actually, Google ads no longer have a distinguishing background color.
Thank you
I may have this wrong, but the way I see it is a competetor paid to have their company show up when a person searches for AXA.
In addition, the ads that come up have the word AXA in the links. Seems clear to me, that this is rather missleading and that some people may think the ads represent AXA.
A lot of people seem to be drawing incorrect conclusions. That is, that this is just like the yellow pages where when a person looks up McDonalds and sees an ad for Burger King right next to it.
In actuality it's more like looking up McDonalds in the white pages and seeing an ad next to it that also has McDonalds at the top, but has the phone number for Burger King.
The first example is ok, the second is not.
The terms sold were "AXA" and "Direct Assurance". The second term is similar in makeup of the previous overturned lawsuit. It's just a term that could be used in common speach about your assurance (insurance/indemnity) product. However, "AXA" is not a common use term, thus selling it to someone whom doesn't own that trademark probably qualifies as negligence.
If these AdWord links were created coincidentally by finding the word 'assurance', 'insurance' or 'indemnity' in the search results text, then this would likely have no standing in court. However, it appears to be the assertion of AXA (the company) that their trademarks were sold to AXA's direct competitors.
Again read my linked post for more background on the context of THIS post.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
It's reasonable to assume that use of the words "direct assurance" would be naturally constructed by anyone who sells an assurance product directly to customers (as opposed to exclusively over broker networks). This is conterpointed to a famous US trademark, "Built Ford Tough". Here it's not reasonable to assume Chevrolet would naturally contruct this phrase about their automobiles.
My original assertion (first post) - I think they have a good chance of losing because of the term AXA, not because of the term, 'Direct Assurance'.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
My company uses Google AdWords to let potential IRONPORT customers know that a lower cost alternative exists. (FCC calls this a comparative ad. It is legal and encouraged: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm) This has earmarked me as a target for IRONPORT. I am sure they tried to pull my ad and at least six others using Google's (offline) trademark resolution policy; and I am certain that they were denied because this use of their name does not create confusion in the marketplace. Instead, here's the letter I got: April 26, 2004 EXPRESS MAIL Jeffrey Aguilera Chief Executive Officerd Red Condor, Inc. 340 Tesconi Circle, Suite B Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Re: IronPort Systems, Inc.---Trademark IRONPORT Our file 60063-0014 Dear Mr. Aguilera: We represent IronPort Systems, Inc., of San Bruno, California in trademark and intellectual property matters and are writing to you regarding your arrangement for certain internet search services and sites to use the term "IRONPORT" to advertise services that you offer on the internet at the domain RedCondor.com. IronPort is the owner of U.S. Trademark Application No. 78/188,013 for IRONPORT, which has been successfully examined by the U.S. Tradmark Office. IronPort provides email security devices and email delivery devices that have developed a well-deserved reputation for high performance and ease of use. Its mark IRONPORT is distinctive of its products and services and is a stong mark. Having extensive use and exposure in the marketplace, IronPort has acquired substantial and valuable goodwill in the IRONPORT mark, and has accrued valuable rights that are enforceable under Federal law. We have learned that searches using the Google searcg service and possible other services, using the term IRONPORT as the sole search term, causes these services to display an advertisement, "AdWord sponsored link," or other sponsored link that identifies you and the following link to your site http://www.RedCondor.com/welcome/. You are unrelated to IronPort and are unauthorized to use the mark IRONPORT to identify your products and services. Individuals who select www.RedCondor.com after searching for IRONPORT with the foregoing search services and web sites may be confused into thinking that your company, web site, productsm or services are sponsored, licensed or authorized by IronPort. Accordingly, by using or contracting for use of IRONPORT with these search services, you are likely to cause confusion or mistake among consumers with respect to the source of your products and services, or you may tend to dilute the distinctive character of IronPort's mark. These actions constitute trademark infringement directly or by contribution and dilution of IronPort's rights under state and federal law. Your infringement may result in IronPort sufferring loss of clients of business, loss of goodwill, and other intangible but definite harm, at a cost that we are presently investigating. This infingement must cease immediately. To protect the value and distinctiveness of the mark IRONPORT, IronPort is legally required to, and actively does, police its intellectual property rights. Therefore, we demand that you immediately: * contact Google and any other site with which you have a contract for advertisements, AdWords, sponsored links, or the like, and request such parties to immediately modify their records so that any search under the term IRONPORT alone ceases to trigger display of any advertisement, AdWords, sponsored links or the like referring to you; * confirm in writing to me that you have done so; and * refrain from entering info any similar contract forever in the future. We further demand that you take all the foregoing actions by May 7, 2004. If you elect not to accede to these requests or response, we may take other action to protect IronPort's rights, including legal action, without further notice or communication. You may address any questions about this matter to me at (408)414-1080, x207. Very truly yours, /s/
Craig G. Holmes
Enclosure /CGH
Good point, they are also no longer found above normal search results. They are relegated to a side bar.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
:)
"You get all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing down numbers, paying attention...science has it all."
*** This thread is marked as CLOSED ***
*** Please move on to another topic ***
There suing the literal tool instead of the figurative one. They should really be chasing down the competitors who bought up advertisements for there name. Consider the following simmilar real life scenario.
The fictional company uggle rents billboard space along the most populated highway in the world, the fictional insurance company PAX is a well known and respected french insuance company, a competitor to PAX rents a billboard right before the offramp to get to PAX insuance, and posts a copyright infringing sign attempting to get people to go to the next offramp where there insurance company is.
Who has commited a crime here; uggle, PAX (For having a copyright that has enough scope to stop others from advertising simmilar products and mentioneing them), or it's competitor
I think the fault lies with the competitor buying up advertising space and breaking copyright to use PAX's name....
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
This man is cooking up enough crazy theories for me to think Google at his baby.
We only do consistent biased reporting here.
paintball
I understand what you are saying (I think), but my rather long-winded question was "should it matter?" Should Google have to pretend they don't know what AXA's business is?
When I go to buy a pair of shoes and I want Nike and I ask the store clerk for Nike should the store then hide all other types of shoes and make no reference to any other brand for fear Nike can sue them if they do?
I think the answer is 'no' because normally what happens no matter what brand you ask for is you are also told about other brands that may be on sale. In your example of the adword "Chevrolet", it's obvious to everyone that "Chevrolet" is a car and I don't see a problem with listing other car brands. I'm sure there would be a way to get around the selling of the actual term "Chevrolet", they could just have a list of all car manufacturers and if any one of them is searched for you get the same ads you would if you just searched for 'car'.
I can see a good arguement for each side. It's not a simple question.
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
(plug)my band's name is indeterminism.(/plug)
a search for indeterminism yields determinism research through questia.com as a sponsored link.
Now, that totally contradicts our agenda. Is that a justification for me to sue Google?
Not a chance. It's in poor taste.
I notice a break in my shoe store logic with your statement
;^)
Similarly, there wouldn't have been a question had these ads been purchased by companies that had a fair-use right to use the term, AXA. Such as an Independant Insurance Broker that sells AXA as one choice among many.
so I'm not replying to myself, only clarifying my point
the point is still that we all know you are searching for insurance. Is it wrong of Google to point out competition? Suppose you had no knowledge of any insurance companies, but a friend had told you about AXA. You search with the term 'AXA' and Google gives you AXA's site along with ads for several other insurance companies. Has Google done a disservice to AXA? Or is it more helpful to the consumer for Google to list other relavent information concerning the search. If the person is looking specifically for AXA they will find it and it's not likely they will confuse the ads for XYZ Assurance with AXA Assuance. At least, in my opinion, which admittedly, doesn't count for much, even around here much less a French court.
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
The company claims that the use of their words infringes on its trademarks, patents and copyrights, and wants to stop Google from selling them.
[Begin rant]
Google is not selling people's trademarks. The company still owns them.
Google is not selling people's copyrights. They are making fair use of published material, as an indexing service.
Google is not infringing on people's patents by linking to their pages, unless that patant was on linking to someone's pages through a search engine.
Google is not supporting the competitors, other than through paid advertizing.
Google is not making any statements about which product to use.
Google is not making any statements about which company to support.
Google is not transferring any legal rights or ownership of the rights.
Google is not stating that you have a criminal record, or that you are doing something illegal, not making libel claims about you, and not violating your privacy, even though they might offer that information if it is searched for.
What ARE they doing?
Google is saying "You just asked us about one or more word. We have been paid to show you these ads when you typed that word, and these web sites use that word or have a high correlation to that word."
I'm sick of lawsuits against them for indexing public sites.
There are billions of web sites. These sites are publically available. Since Google is doing nothing more than indexing publically available content using fair-use excerpts, THESE LAWSUITS SHOULD ALL BE THROWN OUT.
If somebody is to be sued, it is the company paying for the ads, and the people publishing the source sites, making the information available to the public. Not Google.
[End Rant]
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Look on AXA at http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&S tring=exact&Acronym=AXA
If Google honestly returns search links because of related words (found via some tree-search profiling of AXA), then that's an honest use of search engine technology. I think we agree here.
However to specifically sell advertisements to a company based on the AdWord availability of a company's name to that company's competitors is to deliberately dilute the trademark. Consider Chrystler. If I sell roses, and I buy the AdWord for Chrystler, fine. Chryster was a type of rose, long before it became a car-related trademark. However, if I sell cars, then this is bad. I'm diluting the trademark. Google is considered authoritative by many people. I automatically assume that when I find the word Ford on a Mazda web-site that the two companies are affiliated (they are). I automatically assume that when I get search results from Google the results I get have something to do with my term.
Ignoring ads - a search for AXA does not return competitors, so why do the ads return competitors? Because my search term triggered specific purchased results. Not because Google thinks they might be handy. That's where your argument and my argument become about two different things, no?
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
The minute Google is making money off of the sale of a term, this is where their liability starts. Everything else is the nature of search engine technology. If you still disagree, then there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
*it's not there
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I can't understand what's different between what Google is doing and what supermarkets regularly do. At the supermarket checkout, they have these little coupon printers which spit out a coupon or two based on your purchases. Invariably, whenever I buy Tropicana orange juice, the coupon printer hands me a coupon for Minute Maid. There's obviously some database attached to these coupon printers with an entry for a Minute Maid coupon attached to the (trademarked) product name "Tropicana". Should Tropicana go and sue Coca-Cola (Minute Maid's owner) for infringement? Certainly not -- they'd be laughed out of court.
After all if I'm looking for AXA insurance I will be inundated with AAAAAA AAdvaarck Insurance ads before I get to AXA's in the Yellow Pages under the insurance heading.
Google or anyone is allowed to mention a competitor when you look for a site.
How can you stop someone from doing that?
Here's what's happening:
Consumer: Tell me about Ford's Mustang
Google: Here's the link to Ford and the Mustang. Oh, by the way, did you know Chevy makes the Corvette? You can read about it here.
Consumer: Thanks for the info. I'll look at Chevy and Ford.
That's no illegal, its not a trademark infringement. Its not nothing.
You probably think "Loaning a CD to your friend is "piracy". You're being deliberately obtuse and goofy.
So, what happens if Google takes their ball and goes home? Couldn't they just say "Fine, no one from France is allowed to use Google?"
Sure, the geeks would always be able to get to it, but that's not the point. Is Google important enough that they could pull a power-play like this?
The ads that show up at the top of the page still have the background color to distinguish them from actual search results. They took the color off of the ads on the side, and now instead use a line to separate sponsored results.
Either way, it's extremely clear which links are sponsored and which links aren't.
Open up the yellow page phone book you have next to your phone. Look up any topic like "lawyers" and you'll find not one lawyer but a whole gaggle
You have totally misunderstood the issue. It's like you pick up the phone book and look up Lawyers R Us and call the number, only to find that you get Lawyers 4 U, a rival firm, and that Lawyers 4 U paid the phone book people to put their number in under the name of Lawyers R Us.
Why are companies afraid of competition? Because it makes them work a little bit harder?
They aren't afraid of competition, they're afraid of brand dilution. I laugh at Slashdot in cases like this. Let's say Microsoft renamed EULA to GPL, the "Gates Programming License" or something - the Slashbots would be frothing with rage. Many of them would be unable to even post comments about it because their fingers would cramp up in spasms of anger. This is no different.
WOW!!! They changed it!!! Score for the Jews!!! It seems if you challenge the immoral the suppliers of hate will listen.
I would like to know if google was allowing AXA's competitor to code metatags dealing with AXA in their website. It is advertising that google is selling right? How could you not see the reason why? If the Pepsi guy is caught drinking Coke on the job he is firing for supporting the competition. Don't you know this? Are you from Canada or some other socialist economic state?
[Also after re-reading the article it doesn't mention anything about being listed first... that was me popping off, but my words above still stand]
As far as google removing jewwatch? They did.
Conpiracy theory fits here folks, Google has all of its faithful believers fooled, you can see the redirection of traffic in the index by looking at the research on http://www.webcenter.squarespace.com What Google is doing is this, a search user punches in a trademark, Google runs competitors of the trademark owners in front of the search engine user in the form of ADWORDS and redirection listings in the SERP's. The traffic is then diverted to those who pay Google to highjack the Trademark owners customers who sought to find the goods or services of the Trademark owner. The conspiracy is between Google and those who buy the keywords that conflict with the Trademark owners rights to that mark. That is what all the Trademark lawsuits are about, diversion of traffic by Google to competitors of the Trademark owner, Google is Guilty and they know this, these cases will all be settled out of court after Google stalls as long as they can...They have been dirverting even non-trademarked keywords to their advertising partners as you will see in the link in this post.