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.
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.
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.