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.
I wonder if this is going to open the door for companies to take action against domain names that are similar to their trademarked name.
If it's unacceptable for Google to sell "Geico", will it also be unacceptable for someone to have www.G31c0.com and no, I don't know if that's a valid URL or not.
This pretty much proves the pathetic state of our legal system... The fact that essentially the same case can be tried twice within a very close timeframe and two different results can be achieved. I can understand that something 50 years ago may get a different result than now based on changes in society... But we're talking here about two of the same cases sitting in the same medium in a very close proximity in time. I think it's time for some judicial reform... Maybe that's just me...
Google is one of many search service. You use it voluntarily. Why shouldn't they have the right to display what they want depending on the word you type in. They are not using the geico name illegally as I know, simply display competitor's sites when that search is iniated.
A similiar thing happens when I go to fast food (KFC, Tacobell, Pepsi owned?) restaurants and ask for a Sprite - "No, sorry sir, we only carry Slice. Would you like that?" They don't simply say no and leave it at that.
They could as easily drop geico's webpage completely - that should be within google's rights. No one promised Geico that they be displayed at all after all in this privately owned website.
I just recently saw a commercial for some insurance company and noticed that they didn't use Geico's name. Instead, the guy says, "She had the gecko." I guess that insurance company made the right move if Geico is litigation happy, trying to protect their name.
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
Let's see... Geico had a fit because one of their competitors "bought" the word Geico as an adword so their ad would show up when they search Geico on Google? Is this correct?
Easy way to fix that, take all references of "Geico" out of Google.
On one hand, I can understand where Geico is coming from, but on the other hand, advertisers use their competitors names' in their ads all the time. Can State Farm sue because Geico says I can save 15% off their price? Where does this end? Are websites that compare prices illegal?
I can see if you're avoiding mentioning someone else's trademark in your ad. But this boarders on dictating what you can and cannot search for.
FLR
I use Adwords to advertise for my company. I'm kind of surprised Geico had to resort to litigation. We have the same issue all the time. Google quickly and efficiently removes the ads that use our trademark when we follow their trademark complaint procedure.
The right decision IMO... this is using another company's name to advertise your products. wrong.
So why didn't Geico sue the company that used their name, rather than Google?
If I ran an Ad for SpiffyCola on the radio, using Coke's name as a comparison, would you sue the FCC for licensing the frequency to the radio station that aired it?
There is a potential for a chilling effect on online ads. Perhaps GEICO has stiffed a few of its clients, for instance, and I might want to do a web site on that. Would I be prohibited from using text like "GEICO Stiffed Clients" in the text of the ad?
Good bye free speech...
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
I switched to AIG, they were cheaper for my 2 cars, and when my wife had a fender bender, they had the damage inspected by a shop of our choice (we picked the dealer) then sent out someone to evalutate the dealers quote. Then they let the dealer fix it. When the dealer found more damage after starting the repair, again they sent out a guy to evaluate, and paid for the extra repairs too. Best experiance I have ever had with an insurance company. From accident to getting the car back in our hands - 1 week.
Actually, people are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing this ruling, which, in my opinion is flawed on a number of levels. First, the ruling has NOTHING to do with making a direct comparison in your AdWords Ad. It has to do with using the word GEICO as one of the words you pay for such that when someone types GEICO into the search bar, Your non-Geico AdWords Ad is displayed. Your ad in fact probably wouldn't say Geico at all.
Thus, the ruling relates not to the content of the advertising but the CONTEXT. This is a vital distinction. I faced a similar situation last year with AdWords. I was marketing a product called RU-21 for Hangovers. The most popular product in the category is called Chaser, and I was bidding on that word to have my ad displayed when someone searched Chaser. About a month after starting the campaign, I received a VERY UNPLEASANT and threatening letter from Chaser's corporate council...
What makes this a really important issue is that a large percentage of the really successful AdWords campaigns are predicated upon buying keywords that are the names of your competitor's products.
Google is undoubtedly going to appeal, but should they lose this will change the name of the game quite considerably both for the advertisers AND for Google
There is no "I" in B-O-R-G.
The Pepsi side-by-side taste test ads that I've seen (in the US) refer to Coke.
There are also other Pepsi ads that refer to Coke, like the one where they keep changing the Coke vending machine sitting beside the Pepsi machine, and everyone keeps buying from the Pepsi machine.
(Off Topic bit) The power of advertising: In blind side-by-side taste tests, Pepsi always overwhelmingly beats Coke -- but everyone keeps buying Coke anyway.
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,"
I do. But then, they don't use dumb resoning like their car is "just better" than a Ford. They say things like "higher resale value than Ford or Chevy", "more interior room than Accord", "higher owner brand loyalty than Toyota". And considering how polls and studies are conducted nowadays they all can make the cliam and have a "report" to back it up.
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.
Slightly off topic, but I wish eBay had a policy like this. If there's one thing that bothers me it's when I search for a certain product by brand and model number and get a bunch of resluts for other products where the seller put "not XXXX" or "better than XXXX" in the item title/description.