Trademarks and Google Ads Options

[bragadocchio]

One of the issues that faces online advertisement services like Google's Adwords is the use of trademarked terms in the selection of terms used by advertisers to serve ads on Google, and on sites that display Google's ads.

We've seen litigation between Google and Geico, and pending suits between Google and AXA Group, and American Blind and Wallpaper over trademarks and Adwords.

In Europe, there are reports of adwords targeting Apple trademarked terms being rejected by Google. See: Apple targets AdWord use in Europe

A new patent application from Google describes a technical framework for considering trademark issues when serving advertisements:

Selectively delivering advertisements based at least in part on trademark issues

It's interesting in a number of ways. One aspect of it would serve a legal disclaimer in some jurisdictions to limit consumer confusion. In other jurisdictions, it may not serve an advertisement at all based upon the laws of that region. The document provides thoughtful technical framework for handling trademarks in ads.

Will it be implemented by Google? We can't tell for certain, because it is just a patent application. But it bodes well for Google that they seem to have a plan in place for handling these legal issues.

[GeoffreyF67]

Personally, I'm against the laws that say you can't use the trademarked terms in online ads. I mean, it's like saying - hey, you mentiond Apple in your radio advertisement - we're gonna sue you!

It just seems to lame to me.

It is rather interesting that Google is attempting to come up with a way to algorithmically take care of some of these issues although I doubt that it'll ever be 100% correct. Still, if it can filter out some of the problems I'm sure it'll save em a ton of money attempting to deal with it.

G-Man

P.S. Don't get me started about the stuff they're trying to put into patents these days LOL.

[Ruud]

I'm against the laws that say you can't use the trademarked terms in online ads

Especially since whole slogans and phrases can be TM-ed. In at least the US, I don't know how it is at the moment in the EU, you're allowed to make comparative ads. So brands and TM's aren't excluded right from the start.

If patents can go nuts, trademarks are even worse. Trademarks have the potential to rob us of our own language.

NEW FOR YOU? Whhoops, that's a registered Amazon trademark... Hm, "now what?!" ... Dang! That is a Barnes & Nobles trademark. As is "Of Course We Can," "Order It Today, Get It Today," "Overbooked," and a whole bunch of other ones including "Weird". "Yikes"? Yup, that one too.

Alive, Cheers, Burn, Signature, and Tropical -- to name just a few -- all belong to Coca Cola.

Someone somewhere probably has both the trademark and the patent for "Click Here". We're all in deep trouble

Edited hyperlink

[bwelford]

You've got to look carefully at the trademark registration here. If it's a common phrase, you'll find it's only allowed for a very precisely defined purpose. In fact, this isn't a US registered trademark. Amazon is only claiming it for its own use and warns off people with the following:

Amazon.com's trademarks and trade dress may not be used in connection with any product or service that is not Amazon.com's, in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among customers, or in any manner that disparages or discredits Amazon.com.

So if you're trying to sell your elephant, go ahead and use "New for You?", I don't think Amazon is going to complain.

[Ruud]

Yes, I took it a step further of course. In reality trademark disputes have to show negative impact on the business of the trademark owner. Still, although non-commercial use of a trademark is allowed and most of the time a trademark applies to similar goods and services, a trademark holder can go after a case anyway if he feels the use of his trademark hurts his image or credibility.

Also, a trademark owner has to counter any infringement of his trademark in order to maintain the right to defend it. If you start a site similar in name and/or look to Amazon but selling different products, Amazon still has to act upon it or eventually lose its right to defend its trademark. This is the reason why big brands like Coca Cola even go after fan sites.

To have a brandname be a trademark makes sense to me. To allow exclusion of use of a more or less common phrase for a specific product or a whole line of products isn't.

[bwelford]

To allow exclusion of use of a more or less common phrase for a specific product or a whole line of products isn't.

On the other hand, Ruud, I think any major company that tries that has rocks in its corporate head. The most fatuous example of that was when the major international consulting group, PwC Consulting, decided to switch its name to Monday. They had to go through a whole series of very narrow US trademark registrations and the dead and abandoned bodies still exist in the US Tess Trademark Database, for example the Record for Serial Number 76413067. The record shows:

Word Mark    MONDAY
Goods and Services  (ABANDONED) IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Information technology consulting and advisory services;

Not surprisingly IBM swallowed up Monday shortly thereafter and that corporate name sank without living trace.

[Ruud]

On the other hand, Ruud, I think any major company that tries that has rocks in its corporate head.

You mean tries to enforce their trademark? But that's the crutch of trademark law, right; if you don't counter use # 1 through 9, then with case #10 you automatically lose. You have to actively enforce your trademark.

I would venture to guess that most of the trademarked slogans will never be enforced. Then again, I also thought a patent lawsuit against Amazon for using a "shopping cart" (the very concept is patented...) wouldn't hold, yet they settled for $40 million.