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.
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.
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...
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?
Overture is significantly more hands-on with ad copy and keyword selection than Google is. They routinely reject ads that might potentially violate copyright because they're "not relevant". For example, Overture probably won't let a competitor bid on the term "Geico" because "Geico" isn't relevant to an ad for "ACME Insurance" (or say they'll say). What they do explicitly allow is comparative advertising, where an ad explicitly identifies the company as a competitor and offers an alternative.
For example, if you search for "Geico" on Yahoo you see that the ad text says things like "instant quotes from insurance companies that compete with Geico." This is an example of comparative advertising that Overture allows.
Google, on the other hand, is much looser with what they'll allow in ads, to some degree because they have less human editor intervention and more algorithmic relevance scoring. Their business philosophy is more free marketplace/large volume oriented.
So this is one reason you'll see companies go after Google rather than Overture. They're lower-hanging fruit.
While I agree with the verdict, the case isn't nearly as silly as you make out. If you looked under Geico in the yellowpages and the things you found under that heading were Geico's competitors, I could understand Geico being a bit upset.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
Yes, yes it does. That's the thing with all this suing everyone for everything. There comes a time when you might need to put up a defense that is counter to what you yourself have actually been doing.
The sword of justice has two edges.
KFG