Google's Ban of an Anti-MoveOn.org Ad

Whip-hero writes in with an Examiner.com story about Google's rejection of an ad critical of MoveOn.org. The story rehashes the controversy over MoveOn.org's ad that ran in the NYTimes on the first day of testimony of Gen. Petraeus's Senate testimony. The rejected ad was submitted on behalf of Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins — its text is reproduced in the article. The implication, which has been picked up by many blogs on the other side of the spectrum from MoveOn.org, is that Google acted out of political favoritism. Not so, says Google's policy counsel: Google's trademark policy allows any trademark holder to request that its marks not be used in ads; and MoveOn.org had made such a request.

Comments

Sooo....

[TheGreatHegemon]

Basically, a ad had a trademark on it, and the trademark owner asked for the ad to be removed? Not really big news...
It'll be news if they submitted an ad WITHOUT infringing on a trademark, and that was rejected.

Re:Sooo....

[tenchiken]

So what happens if the DNC, or RNC, which are after all political corporations and have their respective party named trademarked forbid Google from displaying any advertising that critiques them.

All of the paranoia, all of the rhetoric, all of te tin foil goes away once it's the other side being muzzled, instead of yours. More proof (as if any where needed) of the complete lack of principles from most of the political slashdot crew.

Re:Sooo....

[Khaed]

"There's this company, called... Okay, there's a company that makes an operating system most people use. It's named after a set of glass panes placed in your wall to allow you to see outside. The company... they're called... a word for very small and the opposite of hard. And, see..."

Re:Sooo....

[Pantero Blanco]

Trademarks aren't copyrights, there is no "fair use clause".

No, Trademark Law also has a fair use doctrine, which includes using trademarks nominatively. Otherwise you'd see Coke and Pepsi suing each other whenever one of them put out an ad comparing the two.

Beyond that, Google never said they were doing it to comply with laws. They are probably doing it as a professional courtesy. If somebody wanted to put an "ad" up that slammed freerepublic, and freerepublic asked Google not to, then Google would give them the same consideration.

The article mentions anti-Blackwater and anti-Exxon ads as being "permitted" by Google, but it doesn't say whether or not the companies have requested takedowns.

Either way, if their trademark use policy doesn't allow for nominative use, it's faulty and needs to be fixed. Plenty of companies run comparative ads (our product versus Competitor X's product), which generally require the other company to be identified.

Re:Sooo....

[Jarjarthejedi]

Or you could, you know, criticize the group without their trademark...it's not impossible...I mean, if I say "Those gosh darned Recoding Industry Association of America people are dumb" I've criticized them without using their trademark, just their name. Names are almost never trademarked, or at least full names (Pepsi may be, but Pepsi Cola Company isn't as far as I know).

Honestly, if you're going to criticize someone you may as well spell out who you're criticizing, what with the ton of different acronyms we have today.

Re:Sooo....

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be clear that we, the citizens of America (and the world for that matter), are being played off each other.

We're being played. Used by the wealthy and powerful, tricked into fighting over false grievances while the elites literally get away with murder.

Take a glance at TV any time, and you'll see ludicrous BS like "Hannity" and "Colmes." I put the names in quotes because they aren't real people; they are characters. Each is a bumbling caricature of what the opposite political party is supposed to look like. Republicans are supposed to hate the Colmes character, and Democrats are supposed to hate the Hannity character. In reality, neither character says anything reasonable nor worthwhile -- they are purely scripted to trigger the hate-phrases of their respective goading target.

This is just a single example, but when you start to look around you, you notice that almost everything in high-level politics works this way. There are a few exceptions among politicians, but they rarely get elected because they don't play along. Without accepting bribes from wealthy donors, a politician can't afford the ad spots needed to gain popular recognition. Likewise, there are a few exceptions in mainstream media, but they don't last long if they disrupt the flow of advertising money or if they offend their wealthy owners.

Why are we being played?

When we think that our enemies are our neighbors, we will not stand up to the megacorporations fleecing us, and their sycophants in Congress who pass laws to help them steal our money (in return for a small portion of it themselves). We'll quibble among ourselves while they get away with whatever they like. No, the wealthy and powerful aren't concertedly working together against us -- but they're much closer to each other than they are to the teeming masses far below them. They all benefit when we are their slave labor.

We end up supporting the court jester who appears to most closely support our views. In truth, the jesters are all just playing their parts, and they'll all get paid well at the end of the night. We, the paying audience, don't seem to realize it's just a show.

Re:What about the other ads with trademarks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like it. Pity the author of the article couldn't have actually dug a little deeper and asked Google whether or not this was the case, but I suppose today's journalist never wants to allow clarification to get in the way of controversy.

using a trademark <> infringing a trademark

[sed quid in infernos]

There are many examples of using another's trademark in an ad that do not amount to trademark infringement. The nominative use exception allows use of another's trademark to refer to the trademark owner's product or the trademark owner itself when:

[f]irst, the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.

Based on the contents of the ad reproduced in TFA, this ad could easily qualify for the nominative use exception. The determination couldn't be final without looking at the whole ad itself, but the snippets in the article seem to be right in line with these requirements. Certainly, Google has the right to implement any trademark policy it wants. But their policy causes them to reject many ads that are not infringing on others' trademarks. The same policy would stop ads that described the wrongdoing of any organization that has trademark rights in its name (as most organizations that deal with the public do).

new google ad in NYT

[commodoresloat]

Google?

or

Goo-betray us?

the court says:

[Scrameustache]

There are many examples of using another's trademark in an ad that do not amount to trademark infringement. The nominative use exception allows use of another's trademark to refer to the trademark owner's product or the trademark owner itself Google was sued over trademarks used as adSense triggers: "Defendant's internal use of plaintiff's trademark trigger sponsored links is not a use of a trademark...because there is no allegation that defendant places plaintiff's trademarks on any goods, containers, displays, or advertisements , or that its internal use is visible to the public."

Therefore, Google's policy is When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, we only investigate the use of the trademark in ad text. If the advertiser is using the trademark in ad text, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademark and prevent them from using it in ad text in the future. Please note that we will not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint.

Their position is the only one that will increase shareholder value.

Was the original ad all that offensive?

[moosesocks]

I know this is slightly OT, but I'd like to see some sort of reasoned debate over it here...

What exactly was so offensive about MoveOn.org's ad campaign in the first place?

Petraeus has handled the Iraq war poorly, and in several cases lied outright to the American people. MoveOn.org called him out on it. Isn't that how democratic politics and free speech are supposed to work?

It's no secret that many Americans feel that the government misled the general public in order to bolster support for their war, and the ad was a simple reflection of this reality. It wasn't even a baseless personal attack -- they provide quotations, and even cite their sources.

Perhaps the most troubling part of the whole saga is that the house passed a resolution condemning the advert 341-79, and the senate 71-29 (With all 49 republicans, and 22 democrats voting in favor). The president even got in on the action.

This Time editorial seems to have the best summation of the whole situation.

Is this all the legislative branch is good for these days? Sternly wagging their fingers at political action groups, and listening to baseball testimony?