Slashdot Mirror
GEICO vs Google Ads: Google Wins
abertoll writes "A federal judge decided that Google is able to sell ads under the GEICO trademark, claiming that this is fair use of the trademark. GEICO's contention was that competing insurance companies were using the name GEICO under which to buy Google Ads, so that when someone searches for GEICO, their ad would come up."
The ruling is fine, as long as other judges/courts are sticking to the same ruling in the future.
Moreoever it's quite widely recognized that companies are allowed to use/refer/compare other competitors under the terms of fair use, how else are companies going to mention competitors' products without infringing a TM?
The judge said that "as a matter of law it is not trademark infringement to use trademarks as keywords to trigger advertising".
Does that mean that it's okay to use "BesidesGoogle.com" or "BetterThanGoogle.com" for another online search engine service? Since it's only promoting fair competition as argued by Google. And domain name is simply a form of advertising keywords that people use to find a product.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Google for president.
Electrons are free; it is moving them that becomes expensive.
That was quick. Slashdot posting the story and the decision within a day.
Could this be the start of a trend in which news moves at the pace of slashdot?
Geico sues the Yellow Pages for letting competitors advertise right in the "Auto Insurance" section!
Seriously. I'd like to say this is the stupidest lawsuit ever, but there's been a rampant stupidity in the courts.. well, for as long as I can remember.
Nevertheless, it seems like the right result to me. It is difficult to imagine there is any consumer confusion when using a web search engine like Google. You enter any word, even a brand name, and you expect there to be at least a few hundred totally irrelevant results. In Google's case, you expect there to be irrelevant results including insurance companies unrelated to Geico.
Our company got a cease and desist from Google for using another company's name in our keywords.
Why is it what when claria/gator or anyone else does simillar things, it is evil, but when google does it, it is fair. I'm not against google, in fact I think they are the best thing that happened to the internet but then Geico does have a valid position. When a prospective policy buyer hears about geico on the radio or tv (paid for by Geico), they go to google and search for the web site.
Now, I understand the ads are on the right side but the home page summary looks very bland on the search result, while the ad on the side is more attractive and the customer might go there instead.
What about googlegear.com? They were forced to change names to zipzoomfly. How does that fit into all of this?
The first sponsored link I saw with the Google search for "geico" was this:
It's Only Me, Dave Pell
I'm taking advantage of a popular
case instead of earning my traffic.
Cute. So cute I felt compelled to click on the ad once just because I knew he'd get billed for it by Google at the end of the month.
Although it seems that 'at time of going to print' Google have removed all ads from a search for 'GEICO'. How nice of them :/
Hmmm, Google goes public, stock price soars 100 points.... how can we grab some of that cash...
Let's ask our lawyers!
and now back to the fallout shelter...
Google Adwords, because 15 minutes could steal you 15% or more potential Geico customers. -Nitro
I would respect Google more if they did not use that kind of advertising, even MSN search only comes up with Redhat related ad results when you search in it.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
Frawress Victoly!
Bored? Visit my exciting counter page!
I didn't read the article or the judgment, but this is common sense.
Google shouldn't have to babysit every ad that is sold. At the same time, the article summary gives the impression that Google is allowed to advertise themselves using a trademarked name, but Google is just selling ads to whomever will buy them and allowing these users to place whatever text they want.
I would be willing to bet that there is trademark infringement, but Geiko is going to have to go after the companies that are buying the ads.
You know, this seems very similar to the whole P2P argument going on. The *AA are trying to stop the vehicle of p2p when it can be used for good or evil when they should be going after the specific infringers. This seems very similar. Google just provides a vehicle for advertisement. This can be used for good or evil, but Google should not be held liable for the evil of others. And I almost wish this could be used as a sort of precedence, but I don't think our legal system would understand the logic.
Nevertheless, I digress...
I think the whole case is an effort to gain advertising hype. I could be wrong though.
Why UNIX?
I didn't save 15%.
In fact it cost me thousands.
Find a real insurance company; one that follows the laws of your state and doesn't give you the runaround.
that Geico Lost.
The good news is I made hundreads using google stocks.
The first sponsored link I saw with the Google search for "geico" was this:
It's Only Me, Dave Pell
I'm taking advantage of a popular
case instead of earning my traffic.
Cute. So cute I felt compelled to click on the ad once just because I knew he'd get billed for it by Google at the end of the month.
GEICO vs Google: Google wins.
GEICO vs the Advertisers: who wins?
I have an insurance website, we do not use trademark names of insurances we sell in fear they sue us. To me it doesnt make sense, in the end you are helping them sell more, but insurance companies have this kind of philosophy.
I dont know GEICO (I guess it's US based), but say I was selling GEICO insurances, and I used Google adwords... now that GEICO cant go after Google, what prevents it from going after me?
I wonder if it is a coincidence the six of the first eight google results for a search for Geico comes up with links to information about Geico's lawsuits?
Only on
I saved a bunch on my car insurance!
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Joel doesn't like it either:
Attention, FogBugz competitors: a court has ruled that you are welcome to continue to advertise your products when people search for FogBugz on Google. I actually don't think there's anything wrong with this although it does show a certain lack of class, mm, don't you think? You don't see Wal*Mart advertising when you search for Tiffany.
I think this was a good decision by the judge, it frees google of having to research trademarked keywords and yet it still keeps the door open for companies like Geico to sue companies that abuse their trademark.
...and a federal judge made a ruling with computers involved that made sense.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
My small business has a product we advertise using both Google Adwords and Overture... very useful methods of advertising. I've found one of my most productive ad buys is using my primary competitor's product name as a search term. And I'm absolutely certain I'm not the only one doing this, and frankly I don't feel the slightest bit bad about it. Customers looking for a product are often looking for a class of products, not the specific product, and simply only know one particular brand name to search. (How many people are looking for copiers in general when they type "xerox"?)
After all, it wasn't too long ago that it was ruled okay to refer to your competition in an advertisement (like Coke mentioning Pepsi, etc.), so this is just another example of the same thing.
Also, even in the non-targeted (non-paid) results, you'll often find multiple competing products, simply by virtue of similar characteristics and reviews of multiple products on a given page.
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
When the lawsuit story broke, just for fun I added "geico" to my list of adwords. I put it on as 0.05 per click.
Guess what, even then my ad was placing 2nd or 3rd on the list, for a nickel!
If Geico is so bent up about people searching their name finding other competitors, why don't they just pay for some ads on their name themselves. Its not like it costs a mint, and they are rich bastards.
but I'm picturing the Geico gecko pulling up to Google headquarters with a teensy tiny assault rifle.
Seeing as the gecko thought it was a good idea to sue Google (and lost), he'll likely loose that sweet parking spot in front of the building.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
I did save a quantum @$$load of money by switching my car insurance to Geico.
The curses levied against Claria/Gator are not for their replacing of advert banners, but rather because their software does not generally announce its installation, does not alert you that it is running, and regularly reports back to the mothership. What Google is doing is on their own servers (installs nothing unannounced), announces itself (because surely you knew you were at the Google seearch engine), and only spies on you if you accept cookies or never change your IP address. Two completely different tactics. Two completely different attitudes.
Thank you for playing!
UPDATE: I reread both articles, the TMC article incorrectly states that the judge had denied to give a directed verdict for the plaintiff. This is not true, the judge had denied to give a summary judgement before the case went to trial. Then, after hearing one or both sides the judge issued a directed verdict for the plaintiff. The end result is the same, but the means are quite a bit different for the person paying the attorney fees...
...to always rule against Fair Use defenses?
I'll tell you something. This country is going to the dogs. You know, it used to be when you bought a politician, that son of a bitch stayed bought.: Roy L. Fuchs, Used Cars
What the hell is a 'Geico' and why would anyone care to look it up on Google ?!
Sure, it's been ruled to be legal... But the practice of advertising your competitors' trademarks is still a really sleazy thing to do.
Companies that do this fall in the same category for me as people that advertise via direct mail and spam. If I entered Geico into the search engine, then I wanted to read about Geico. Period. Marketing that inserts itself where I haven't invited it is invasive, and earns my ire.
Ben Affleck, star of such films as Gigli, recently sued AFLAC insurance, claiming that their ads implied that he was a duck.
Affleck lost the case to AFLAC, 4 to 2.
Unknown host pong.
I wonder if Geico could make a TM infringement claim against "Gecko Insurance Company" whose mascot is a rabbit.
Does that mean I can register www.BetterThanGeico.com and sell my car insurance? Wouldn't that fall under the same reasoning? Historically, people get slapped for registering companyxsucks.com (although usually they are using the company's own trademarks)
I agree with those who said it is distastefull, however it is not done just on the net. Look at many of the pepsi commercials (at least in Canada). The past few have all used coke in their advertisements, and infers that pepsi is that much better than coke. I haven't seen Coke doing the same thing to Pepsi.
"Yo. I think it would be the googlebomb if you had the gecko getting beaten over the head with a subpoena while attempting to do the robot."
I can see the commercials now. (Oh dear, wait'll they find out about the rendering engine for Mozilla...)
This is a very good decision. It makes me feel a little bit better, there are still reasonable judges out there with regard to copyright/trademark/patent law. One can only hope we can get some true reform through congress, but I'm not holding my breath.
same principle. Society wins when trademarks are not unfairly diluted. Google can have whatever the heck business model it wants, but it should not be based on diluting trademarks and service marks - that's not fair (or legal, in general - it's not clear yet how this ruling fits into that puzzle).
I wonder how much it would cost me to advertise Linux under the Microsoft[tm] keyword?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yay! Oh wait. Is Google still on the Slashdot-approved list, or do we hate them now? I forget.
MSN search only comes up with Redhat related ad results when you search in it.
But... why would you??
You can't take the sky from me...
Geico sends C&D's and sues people all the time over weird shit like this. Upper management seems to be pretty clueless about the internet. If you have a domain name with Geico in it, you will be contacted eventually and threatened.
It's funny though because they took the domain http://geicosucks.com from someone and decided to point that domain name to the same ip address as geico.com. So you can get a quote and everything from geicosucks.com. They could have done a simple redirect but their internet "expert" claims that they would have to get another $10K web server in order to do a redirect from geicosucks.com to geico.com
Of course the PHBs won't listen to anyone but the buttmunch who insists that they'd need a new server for a redirect. Funny how the useless and clueless IT people end up in managment.
welcome our new lizard overlords...err...wait...
Google wasn't selling a product using someone else's trademarks. It was for use of user search term keywords. Get back to me when Google's Ads are called "GEICO Google Ads."
You may as well say Google isn't allowed to let people search for the term "Pepsi" if it returns some Coca-Cola search results.
IMHO, GEICO is the worst. I had insurance with them when I first got my license, and the rates were absolutely brutal. They wouldn't insure me as an independent driver, and insisted on conjoining my insurance with both parents' accounts. I moved to a different state for college (a legal change of residence) and they wouldn't un-tether me from the folk's policy because I was a student. It was fscked. I got away from them as fast as possible. In retrospect, it's clear that they did this in order to jack all family members' rates when one had an accident. I got away from them prior to my sister having a fander-bender - which promptly caused the family premiums to skyrocket.
While I recognize that GEICO needs to defend it's trademark or risk losing it, I have to believe that the company officers are resorting to litigation in defense of a poorly-crafted business model. Sueing the search engine because someone else mis-used the trademark? That'd be like sueing a golf club manufacturer because someone whacked a ball through my window.
It's worth keeping in mind that in Google's case the ad priority is largely self-policing. Only the most relevant ads are going to survive top billing, no matter what the bids are, so you as the user truly do have the power to influence what you see. If you don't like ads that appear to be irrelevant on a result page, click on the ones that do.
Hmm, I wonder if Warren Buffet had anything too do with moving forward on this case? Through his company(BKA) he owns 100% of Geico.
Click HERE
No
Whenever a company sues google, google pulls all links to that companys site.
See how long it stops people to stop the litigation.
Or do you expect me to believe that a judge actually made a fair decision in an IP case?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
As grim as it sounds, I think that you first have to understand the law in that country first...
AFAIK and IANAL/JNSPUA (Je ne suis pas un avocat), but French law dictates that all advertising cannot be comparative, ie, Evian can't say they're better than Perrier, for example. They have to use non-comparative sales tactics.
So, naturally, extending this policy to the internet, when you lookup GEICO in this case, you should not expect to see their competitors (assuming search == advertising in legal terms). And cosumers in those countries would not expect to see it either.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
So I can buy the Google adword "google" to market my search engine portal? Does exclusivity cost more than exclusivity on "GEICO" for my insurance portal?
--
make install -not war
My grocery store has been printing coupons with the receipt forever.
I buy pampers, and a Huggies coupon pops out.
What's the big deal? Litigation for litigations sake, and the low possibility that they'll win, meanwhile they (both sides) get lots of press and the people who already love google or geico will side with their brand. People who don't will be branded and will recognize the name later but probably not the reason they remember the name.
It's an expensive advertising campaign at best, and a waste of money and time at worst.
-Adam
Offtopic but I still want to see the reality show "Tiny House." It must be better than the ones that currently exist. Or at least more funny. Geico's ads are better than most other's regardless of the company itself. At least it isn't "yet another car ad" or "generic medicine curing unknown diseases."
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
A baseball manager is visiting the mound for a talk with his pitcher.
Manager: "Suarez, I've got some good news for you. I'm taking you out."
Pitcher: "I thought you said you had good news."
Manager: "I do! I just saved a ton of money on my insurance by switching to GEICO. Give me the ball."
Google is "selling" the word Geico. They make money using someone else's tradename. If Geico wants to defend that name, the only choice they have now is to bid the word into the stratosphere, and pay Google everytime someone clicks on their ad. Doesn't sound like free trade to me. It sounds like Google now has created a universal trademark oligopoly.
How can Google be held liable for associating rival companies on it's OWN search engine?
Google is not a public resource, no matter how beneficial they are to the online community.
Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
This ruling will hurt my endeavor. I have a very popular (within a niche) product but as of yet am not making real revenue off it. Twice I've stopped companies from using my name to market their own crap with AdWords (FYI, a firm personal letter does the trick usually) Take this ruling a step further and anyone with one more penny per click than me can take advantage of my copyrighted name for whatever they want. I'm not even talking about a secondary trademark, I'm talking about my company name. Sucks to be me.
Lawyer: I just got back from the court where the judge issued the ruling today, and I have great news!
Exec: We've been awarded damages from Google?
Lawyer: I just saved a load of money on car insurance by switching to GEICO!
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
So this means I can register google in adwords? On google alone that would net me 20000 clicks! Why? I have no idea, but if you want some traffic you should check it out. bazily
Why cut IT when your office space costs $3/sf? gibso
" If you looked under Geico in the yellowpages"
Your yellow pages are different. I look up "auto insurance" and find Geico.
I think you're describing white pages.
This reminds me of Penthouse sending nasty cease & desist emails to webmasters that included the word "penthouse" in META tags or web content. Webmasters will typically do something like that to try and draw traffic from search engines by using such keywords as "penthouse".
That's the way it works on Overture, but not on Google. Top ranking on Google is not based on maximum bid - it is based on a formula that includes clickthrough rates.... my guess is it is just as simple as $ per 1000 views, with adjustements based on which position the ad is displayed in.
Overture's model is not particualarly clever, as it encourages people to write ad text that will not be clicked. That's a good way to build up brand recognition without incurring costs.
Google also will drop ads if they fall below a certain click rate regardless of the bid amount, indicating to Google that the ad isn't relevent to the search term.
Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
I tried searching Google for the term "Google", I noticed there are no ads.
I entered Google's AdWords administration (the place to buy a "Geico" or "Google" advertisement) and they seem to let me buy ads in the results for "Google" as well as suggesting "google adwords", "google toolbar opera", "google pay per click" and others that actually serve up ads....
Alas it doesn't seem that you can buy "Google" ads.
Get your Unix fortune now!
looks just like the pepsi that we know now except that it tasted like rat feces
Wouldn't they just call it Poopsi?
This is crazy in my opinion. When Playboy filed suit against Netscape for selling search words "playboy" and "playmate" to other sites, words that are standard English, they won. And now Google can use Geico, obviously a trademark term?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
GoogleFight clearly agrees here (www.googlefight.com)
GEICO
(1 250 000 results)
Google
(143 000 000 results)
Google is obviosely the winner with more search results..
therefore try windows and linux GRR !!!
--
Canada here, not sure how the laws are on this but: often I remember seeing ads that don't mention a competitor, but rather "30% whiter than the leading brand" or "20% more ply than the next leading brand."
Is this allowed in other countries? I do know that I'm seeing more directly comparing commericals nowadays, but that could just be the US sat stations...