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?
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 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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Ben Affleck, star of such films as Gigli, recently sued AFLAC insurance, claiming that their ads implied that he was a duck.
The AFLAC duck then sued for defamation, claiming that being associated with Affleck diminished any chances of being taken seriously as an actor. He was awarded $10 million.
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
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???
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".