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 other word they're suing for is "direct insurance" - according to this slightly more informative story from AP out on the wires now.
What really bugs me is that AXA did not pay Google to be listed. AXA can easily deny, via robots.txt, google's ability to visit their site. AXA is getting tons of free publicity via exposure on google. What right does it have to deny clearly demarcated ads on the very same site?
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.
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/
Why not just use the USPTO's database?
Oops, that was direct assurance, not insurance.
I think you've got this wrong. They are suing because Google is selling their name as an Adword, not that their competitor comes up in the search portion of the page. It seems like there could be a good case that the competitor (and Google) is making money by trading on their good name. I'm not saying that I agree, but I don't think it is an open-and-shut case, especially when the name isn't a common english or french word.
Google is a business, and that means that it's primary purpose is to make money so that the business can continue to exist.The fact that Google provides very accurate search results is what makes it so attractive to advertisers.
Their "actual" business plan is to make a ton of money. Period.
Yes, there has been a quick change by Google. However, I don't believe that the US google service was in question.
Adwords is different for each region.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Thanks! .ca search :^). There were no ads, so I guess you are correct that they (Goggle) dropped them.
I actually did the original search fron google.ca.
I just tried it fron google.fr and, again, all the top ten are AXA Insurance sites (including the Canadian one, which I didn't notice in the
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
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.
It's also an acronym not related to the company in question.
Follow me
I'm not a lawyer.
... I don't see why so many people get copyright and trademarks mixed up, or think they are the same thing.
... not one that I would agree with AXA's suing about anyway.
> Its not a dilution of copyright.
There is no such thing as "dilution of copyright"
What is hard for you to understand about the fact that it is illegal to use another companies' trademarked name to sell your own goods?
The Google Adword links had "AXA" as the title! That is the problem. If they were "Bob's Financial Services" there wouldn't be a problem I'm sure
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.