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.
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.
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.
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.
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.