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."

21 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Abuse of what trademarks are for... by raehl · · Score: 5, Informative

    Trademarks are to identify the source of goods. Trademarks are not to protect your good from competition. Nor are the copyrights to protect your trademark from use by others outside of identifying the source of goods.

    --
    paintball
    1. 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?

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by borizz · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, but that is not what is happening. If google displayed a microsoft ad, then fine.

    7. 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
    8. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by funkatron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course it's ok. Google can produce whatever results they want. Just because a company has spent a lot of money doesn't mean they're owed anything.

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    9. Re:Abuse of what trademarks are for... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are two cases here. One is that you search for a product and get adverts for competitors products. This seems absolutely fine to me. The other is that you get a product and get an advert which appears to be someone selling this product but is, in fact, a competitor (or something completely unrelated). This is absolutely not fine, and is something I have experienced with Google search results several times in the past. 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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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
    13. 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.
  2. For A Ransom of...$1. by Prius · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh, Google's being sued. I thought Google was suing the UK. For $100 billion canadian...I've got to stop reading this at five in the morning. Don't ask me how many times it took me to type that sentence. Please.

  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: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)

  5. Re:Coke and Hoover? by davebert · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yep, it's pretty standard usage in England - I hoover with my Dyson!

  6. Re:Coke and Hoover? by YttriumOxide · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think "hoover" tends to be quite common in some areas of the UK, but primarily amongst the older generation now.

    You're quite right about "Xerox" and "Kleenex" though. I'd throw in to the list "Band Aid", "Post It" and "Biro".

    It all depends on where you live though - different countries, and even different locations within countries are more or less likely to use these. For example, in Japan there's "almost" a verb for copying ("xeroxing") based on the name Ricoh (roughly "Ricohpying"). Or in some less developed countries, the world "Nescafe" is a synonym for "coffee".

    --
    My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
    Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  7. Re:they better sue the phone book companies as wel by rsidd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's not the point. The point is the phone book calls them plumbers; it doesn't list them under a brand name (like whatever the equivalent is for Tesco's in plumbing.) Tesco would have no case if a Google search for "supermarkets" threw up ads for non-Tesco supermarkets. What they object to is a customer searching for "Tesco" and being advertised something else. Whether their objection is valid is a matter of debate but there's no analogy with the phone book.

  8. Re:Coke and Hoover? by temcat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In Russian, "kseroks" is vastly more popular as a general term than "kopir." There is a verb "kserit'" which means "to copy on a copier" :-) There is even an adjective "kserokopirovalny" meaning "related to copying on a copier."