Slashdot Mirror
Google Loses AdWords Case
TheChillPill writes "Google has lost a case brought by a company whose name was being used by Adwords users. Insurance firm GEICO, who had not been using Adwords themselves, objected to Google allowing it's advertisers to use the term in their campaigns." This is a reversal for Google based on an earlier story.
... to corporations not protecting me enough. Let's pretend for a second that this case did -not- involve Teh Intarweb; which scenario is then more likely:
GEICO sues the Wall Street Journal, because Progressive places an ad in said WSJ invoking GEICO's name without the proper attribution (usually a "* Blah is trademark and copyright of CompanyCo").
-theGreater.-or-
GEICO sues Progressive for placing said ad in the WSJ and thereby diluting the GEICO trademark.
Normally I wouldn't reply to myself, but you moderators are idiots. There was nothing insightful about my post. It was a joke, its funny, laugh.
The judge must have been paid off by M$. That's the only conclusion a rational person could come to in this case.
I'll be monitoring this discussion; surely it will be a sneak peek at what's to come when SCO wins their case against IBM.
this is using another company's name to advertise your products. wrong.
now if something could be done about those sites that have lines of product names in "invisible" text just to bump their rankings...
and while we're at it, how about offering the option to have user-defined filters always applied, for example unless I say otherwise I'd always like my Google searches to reject all sites that contain the phrase "compare prices for" .
Are websites that compare prices illegal?
These aren't competing companies though.
There is no good reason why someone shouldn't be able to run an ad that says, "we're cheaper than Geico, click here to find out how much you'll save by switching FROM Geico." Society is better off when we take off these arbitrary restrictions that keep cut-throat competition to a minimum by not allowing competitors to easily target each other. If they were trying to pass themselves off as Geico, that's one thing, but trademarks should not be an issue otherwise.
This is why I hate lawyers. To anyone else, most cases would need last only a few hours. Then you have the lawyers who need to go through elaborate procedures, arguing technicalities, making mountains out of mole hills and all of that happy horse shit. What we need is a jury power called, "dismiss with extreme prejudice." If a company gets a few cases dismissed under those terms, then the court begins to charge a non-refundable fee everytime it has to review a case brought by a company or individual. Every honest victory then counts as a positive mark against those bad marks and when they're 1:1 the fee stops being charged.
Those big on law theory wring their hands about stuff like people taking it to the streets. Well here's a novel suggestion, if the company abuses the courts like this, gets censured and then takes matters into its own hands... the government should storm its offices with police in full ninja gear, slam the people responsible head first into the wall while hand-cuffing them and charge them with murder in the first degree then give them a firing squad if convicted. If the government backs up the censure at every step of the way, the courts may have a chance to start reverting back to respectable institutions that serve the public rather than the loudest plaintiffs.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Sheesh.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
What's to stop large companies trademarking all the words in their industry? If that happens, competitors couldn't place a Google Adwords advert using those terms, effectively shutting newcomers out of the market.
Sure, people could sue and counter-sue, but large companies have deeper pockets.
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
According to the article, the ruling just says that Google can't use GEICO in the actual text of the ad. Trademark infringment is about confusion -- would having GEICO in the text of the ad lead someone to believe that it was an ad for GEICO? Quite possibly.
They're all vague references to other companies that most people have an idea about, but are not mentioned. I've never seen a car commercial that says "Buy [our brand], because it's just better than a Ford," or a fast food commercial that says "why eat McDonalds when there's Wendys?"
It seems like these laws are already in place, probably to protect companies from competitors that could engage in either negative advertising or use their established brand to piggy-back.
To answer your initial question, though, I'd imagine that Google will now reject ads that fall under this criteria. If they accept them and continue to list them, that's Google's problem -- they're the ones who lost the lawsuit, not individual advertisers.
No, you're wrong. A judge initially ruled that just selling ads that appear when someone searches for a trademarked term is fine under the law but was unable to rule without a trial whether it was OK to include the trademark in the ad itself.
It looks like the trial has taken place, and the court ruled that having the trademark (Geico) in the ad is misleading, and could confuse people into thinking the insurance being sold is affiliated with Geico. So, that's not allowed.
You can disagree with the outcome, sure, but the judges' actions seem very reasonable: rule quickly in summary judgment on the obvious issues, defer the more complicated ones for a trial.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that you missed that these were 2 separate but somewhat related cases....
I agree. Every court should always come up with the same conclusion. And in that spirit, we can probably save ourselves a lot of tax money by eliminating all of the higher courts and doing away with the entire appeals process. Whats the point of appealing? The second court should come up with the same conclusion as the first.
But then again, people use Google like a phone book nowadays. Typing in Geico is a way to quickly find their web site. I myself do this quite a bit when searching for sites whose domain name approximates but is not a perfect match for the company name. In that way, it more closely approximates a dns search than a word search. In this light, I can understand the ruling.
I'm torn between the two viewpoints. It's a cultural issue, it seems to me. How is Google used? Is it more like a research tool (in which case I don't agree with the ruling) or a directory assistance tool (in which case I do)?
what about the ads where a coke truck guy is caught buying pepsi from a vending machine? Or was it the other way around?
I'm glad that ad had a good affect on you. I know you'll be going out to buy some coke... errr Pepsi... no Coke... errr... Just pick up a case of each.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
A user searches for Geico.
ACCEPTABLE AD:
Allstate Insurance
We can save you 20% over Geico's rates
www.allstate.com
UNACCEPTABLE AD:
Geico
Get cheaper car insurance
www.geico-compare.com
For more information, click here.
I believe that advertisements avoid naming the competition because: