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.
This really saddens me. But it's okay because I just saved a bunch of money on car insurance
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Should have had a Case Else.
Its understandable seeing as how Geico was losing 15% of its profits.
Are they sure that people weren't actually using the word "gecko"? I've heard a lot of people get the two confused.
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.
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.
There is no such thing as bad publicity. Geico just got their advertising courtesy of Google and didn't even have to pay Google for it. Slick move.
Sick of stupidity? http://www.patentlystupid.com
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
I used GEICO when I was overseas because they provided insurance to soldiers, from 1991 to 2003 I used GEICO, then I had an accident and filed a claim.
Their adjuster did not really even look at the vehicle and they only repaired the visible damage without even looking underneath the vehicle, when I griped to a person making a followup call, they fixed some of the issues and left the rest unrepaired. Then they would not renew my policy.
I am not the only person they have done this to, they are hands down the worst insurance agency I have ever dealt with, and I am sure that my daring to complain is what lost my coverage. Now I have better coverage at lower rates with another firm.
I hope this is reversed, because geeks do not let geeks use GEICO.
And... and there was a Google AdSense advertisment showing on this very comment page.
/., why?
Why, oh
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
It's not the same case. One concerned using a trademarked term to trigger an ad. This one concerned using a trademarked term inside a triggered ad.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
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
This pretty much proves the pathetic state of Slashdot. The fact that essentially everyone can not RTFA and apply basic reading comprehension to understand the two are not the same. I can understand that slashdot 5 years ago may have gotten a different result now based on changes in society... But we're talking here about basic reading skills with two stories in a very close proximity in time. I think its time for some educational reform.
And yes, its you.
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!
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.
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.
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.
No, it's not a reversal. The court decided on one situation that had been left open by the earlier ruling.
Apparently, displaying competitors' ads in response to a query for a trademark is permissible; the court ruled, however, that the competitors' ads may not contain the trademarked query terms.
It seems to me that that strikes a pretty good balance. Allowing the trademarked query terms to appear in the ads carries too much risk for confusion, and it has little benefit for consumers.
So,is OK in response to a query for GEICO, butis not.
However, even under the current ruling, the target of the ad link can still do price comparisons between Acme and GEICO. Consumers really don't lose anything through this ruling; the court just came up with a simple rule by which targeted ads can be made a little clearer and less confusing.
The bad news is we just lost our lawsuit and now have to cough up damages and legal fees. The good news is I just saved a bunch on my car insurance!
Or perhaps just plain wrong.
The basis for trademark law is the idea of unfair competition.
So let's start testing this.
It is legal to mention your competitor's trademarked name to say you are better than them, if it is true. And by true, that means proveably true. This is because it isn't unfair to state the truth. Not that if you can't prove it, because it is a matter of opinion (taste tests) or because you are playing tricks in your tests (like the paper towel strength tests), then you use "brand X".
It is legal to use a companies' trademarked name for non-commercial purposes. This is because it isn't competition since it isn't even a commmercial endeavour.
It is not legal to use a companies' trademarked name to lie about them (especially commercially), that would be unfair. Although it's pretty much unfair to lie about a company anyway even if you did avoid their trademark.
It is not legal to masquerade as another company. For example, if I make breakfast oat-rings, I cannot just print up a Cheerios box and put them in it so they sell better. That would be using the properties of General Mills against them. Every dollar they spent advertising or building a name would actually work for me too (and thus against them), I'm unfairly leveraging their efforts.
Now, what about just mentioning them to say you are like them (or perhaps unlike them), as in this case. It is possible to do this legally. For example, if I make an aftermarket HP-compatible ink cartridge I can use their name to indicate what it is. I can say "HP-compatible". Or even "compatible with HP printers" or "replaces HP cartridge #XXYY-035". However, there is an easy way to get in trouble in this case. If I made my box say "HP" covering 90% of the front of the box and my company name in tiny lettering in the corner or on the side, I would be masquerading as an HP product (at least long enough to get your attention), and again that would be unfair. See Negativland's U2 album http://foetusized.org/u2.html for example.
This can happen for regular advertising too. For example, Miller's ads could say "Bud Bud Bud Bud Bud Bud (Miller)" and basically associate themselves more strongly with Budweiser than their own name. That would be unfair too. It even could happen with a (normally legal) comparison ad, like the "better than" ads above. You could truthfully mention you are better than the other product, but spend so much time (or space) in your ad doing it that you are using their name to associate with yours. Obviously all of this is subject to some interpretation.
So, to go to the AdWords thing, is it illegal? Well, you are using a competitors term and using it commercially. So the competition part is there. But the question is, is it unfair to pop up when your competitor's trademarked term is entered. In my opinion, it probably is. In this case, your product's "box art" (the item that attracts people to look at your product/ad) is essentially 100% your competitor's trademarks. It's like that Negativland cover. When someone sees it from far away, it looks more like your compeitition than yourself; and by design. Information that says that this isn't really your competitor's product is available in your detailed ad, but isn't nearly as visible, and requires a more detailed examination, like hiding your name down in the corner or on the side of the box. Furthermore, every ad dollar your competitor spends is twisted to work against them by helping you. The more people learn their name and enter it into the search box, the more your name pops up.
Thus, in my opinion, buying adwords of your competitor's trademarks is probably unfair competition and thus illegal. And if judges think like me (I shudder to think) they have no choice but to rule against Google. I don't feel it should be illegal, so I would like Congress to step in and change the law in this case. Will they do it? Probably depends on who has the most lobbying money.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95