Slashdot Mirror
US Court Orders Company to Use Negative Keywords
A US court has ordered a firm to utilize negative adwords in their internet advertising. "Orion Bancorp took Orion Residential Finance (ORF) to court in Florida over ORF's use of the word 'Orion' in relation to financial services and products, arguing that it had used the term since 2002 and had held a trade mark for it since then. [...] The judge in the case went further, though, restraining ORF from 'purchasing or using any form of advertising including keywords or "adwords" in internet advertising containing any mark incorporating Plaintiff's Mark, or any confusingly similar mark, and shall, when purchasing internet advertising using keywords, adwords or the like, require the activation of the term "Orion" as negative keywords or negative adwords in any internet advertising purchased or used.'"
fyi Bootes is a constellation with the giant void.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootes
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Having made that finding the court is quite reasonably penalizing ORF. It is quite reasonable for an injunction to penalize ORF after they clearly took advantage of Orion's reputation.
And any company that does not show up in court when served with papers is likely to find that they end up saddled with onerous terms in any case.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Translation:
The judge in the case went further, though, restraining
IF
restraining ORF from 'purchasing or using any form of advertising including keywords ||
('adwords' in internet advertising containing any mark incorporating Plaintiff's Mark &&
hall, when purchasing internet advertising using keywords, adwords or the like, require the activation of the term 'Orion' as negative keywords) ||
negative adwords in any internet advertising purchased or used.
END
I may need to debug that...
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
thanks, that helps.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Under normal circumstances I'd agree completely, but since ORF didn't show up at court, their odds of winning an appeal are slim to none.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
the judge specifically said "internet advertising". and s/he used the phrase "keywords, adwords, or the like". to suggest that the ruling applies only to google adwords is flagrant trolling. i don't know how anyone could possibly interpret the statement in the ruling as being constrained to google.
sheesh. how this got modded "interesting" is beyond me.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Anytime a trademark gets an indefinite article, it's in risk of being a common term.
Nobody is likely to ask a friend for "Kleenex," hoping to get a specific brand of tissue, but it is common to ask for "a kleenex," just as somebody might ask for "a bandaid."
People in various places also refer to "a frigidaire" or "a coke," and plenty of terms that started out as trademarks have been lost to common words: aspirin, cellophane, dumpster, escalator, nylon, linoleum, thermos, velcro, zipper.
This post ignores trademark law and precedent. There wasn't any confusion until ORF intentionally tried to cause confusion by choosing the name "Orion xxx". They could have picked any other name in the world, and if they had hired a decent lawyer they would have.
If I start "Skiff Bank" then build it up, then several years later someone starts "Skiff Financial Services" then absolutely that's a trademark infringement. Stop stealing my name, SFS, and go pick your own name instead of trying to confuse the public into walking into your store because the public has a good impression of my name.