Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google To Be Sued in UK For Trademark-Linked Ads

Posted by timothy on from the some-people-are-idiots dept.

nuke-alwin writes "Channel 4 news in the UK is reporting that Google will be sued by Lastminute.com for the way it sells advertising. Adverts from competitors will now be displayed when searching for some trademarks. Google says consumers will benefit. Some trademarks become so familiar that all similar products are known by the trademark name: Coke and Hoover, for example. I think searching for these kinds of words should allow competitors to advertise their similar products."

16 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. they better sue the phone book companies as well. by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    when i look in the phone book for plumbers, i see all different plumbers.

    boo fucking hoo.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  2. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree
    My first arguement would be

    Is it illegal for a salesman at a department store to a different brand product than you initially were looking for?

    I went to JB Hifi and asked for which iPod (trademarked) is the best. Does it have FM Radio? Are they best value?

    Is it illegal to direct the consumer to an iRiver or Samsung player?

    Is it illegal for a used car salesman to sell you a Toyota when you ask for an inferior Mitsubishi?

  3. Are the trademarks in question really generic? by gomiam · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I fail to see LastMinute as a generic trademark, but Auto Trader sounds quite generic IMHO. It's a case-by-case problem (and the judge will have the last word in the end).

    I've been reading the Wikipedia on genericized trademarks (off-topic: shouldn't it be "generized"?) and it doesn't give too much information about the process of certifying the genericity of a trademark: it seems to happen per se if the trademark owner doesn't take steps to avoid genericization, and sometimes even if steps are taken. Would anybody please point me to a better reference?

  4. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by allcar · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You're quite right. Looking further into the article, Tesco (a major supermarket - think WalMart for the UK) is considering action, too.

    In a statement, Tesco also said that it is "disappointed at Google's recent changes to their trademark policy as we think that consumers are the people who will be disadvantaged." Now, what kind of screwy logic leads them to think that when searching for Tesco and being presented with ads for a bunch of supermarkets could lead to consumers being disadvantaged? How thick do they think consumers are?
    This has got to be to the consumers advantage. It lets us know what other companies operate in the same domain. OK, for supermarkets, this is pretty obvious, but less so for, say, Tool Hire. If I want to know about tool hire companies, I could type HSS and get a list of relevant companies, simply because I know of one. Poor example, as I could have just searched on "Tool Hire", but you take my point, I hope.
  5. Again? by pembo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google is still an optional service. If you don't like how they deal with you, don't use them.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    1. Re:Again? by arkhan_jg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You misunderstand. Search for say, 'lastminute.com travel' on uk google and you will get paid sponsor links for competitors to lastminute.com. Assuming google allowed those competiting businesses to add lastminute.com as a keyword for *their* link to show up for, then google is selling competitors the ability to get search results off a trademark that doesn't belong to them.

      Imagine if a supermarket put up a big advertising board at the front of the store with pepsi branding and trademarks, but underneath it was just coke cans for sale, with the whole thing paid for by coke. Pepsi would be pissed at coke and the supermarket, and probably institute a trademark lawsuit. The whole point of a trademark is that it allows you to distinguish your brand, that products sold under the brand are from you.

      Trademarks are there to protect customers, so that when they buy something under a particular trademark, they know who it came from - and thus can infer other likely qualities about the product from that, without some shite third-party pretending to be a quality brand through fake branding when in fact, it's shite.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  6. Re:Coke and Hoover? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Coke.. okay, maybe. Hoover? I never hear anyone say, "go get the Hoover."

    I've heard the term 'hoovering' used to describe vacuuming. I think over in Englad it was more widely used that way. (That is if TV has actually taught me something.)

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  7. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by the_womble · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I think they mean that consumers would be disadvantaged by being distracted from a great opportunity to give Tesco money.

    The problem is that trademarks have become a form of property, rather than a mechanism to avoid misleading consumers.

  8. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by dwater · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Devil's advocate here...

    One company spends a fortune building a brand image and is so successful that it is *their* product's name that is the first thing you think of when you think of the generic product, and yet you think it's ok to use produce results for their competitors too?

    I'm not sure I said that too clearly, but I hope you get the idea.

    --
    Max.
  9. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if somebody googles for linux and google sends them to microsoft.com is that okay?

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  10. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by mattbee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes - trademarks are to identify the source of goods, and anyone misrepresenting their goods as yours may be guilty of passing off at least under UK law. In our very early days we had a competitor of ours place a ads on searches for our company name, with the text shouting about similar services without mention of ours or the competitor's name. We objected to Google, and they took the competitor's ads away.

    Google offer a search service and presented adverts for a competitor when customers searched for our company name. I didn't feel that Google's presentation (i.e. the word "Sponsored links" in small print) made clear enough to potential searchers that the advert was unrelated to our company, and there was a risk of a consumer thinking that this competitor was in fact us. If it had said "These advertisements may be unrelated to the trademark XXX" in clearer text, I'm not sure I would have had the same objection. I think it was a mild attempt at passing off, so I'm glad Google had this policy in place.

    --
    Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
  11. Re:Respect the law of the land by temcat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No. If Google is found to be violating any laws, then it will have to correct the violation. But if the said laws themselves are evil, then by correcting the violation, Google commits an evil act, even if it does so under compulsion.

  12. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by gaspyy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bingo!

    This is what is often missed and it happened to me. I made a search for "serious magic" (a video f/x software). The first link on Google was paid, and it appeared to from the makers of the said software so I clicked on it. Imagine my confusion when I realized the site I landed on was a competitor's. This is really not OK in my book.

  13. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by nguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Had I been the owner of the trademark, I would have been obliged to sue Google (and probably eBay, who is responsible for many of these) or risk losing the trademark.

    You shouldn't sue Google, you should sue the company misrepresenting themselves.

  14. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by smallfries · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did you not read what he said, or did you just fail to understand it? The first link was deceptive - it appeared to go where he wanted but actually ended up on a different site. WTF would sticking to search results achieve here?

    The problem is that Google is allowing deceptive advertising in its results. If they allow one company to pass themselves off as another then they will be sued and they will lose.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  15. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by jbengt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think they should be going after the companies buying the search terms that are trademarked though and not google.
    Unless the ads are set up in a sneaky enough way so as to confuse people into thinking one brand is another, there should be no trademark infringement.