Web Hosting Talk : Other Forums : Web Hosting Lounge : Judge Throws Out Claim Against Google Ads (By Geico) [merged]

[Mikeman]

This is interesting:


The US Federal judge ruled in Google's favor today - it *is* OK to bid on trademarked terms, like company names, brand names, etc.

The giant insurance company Geico sued Google for allowing competing advertisers to dilute their brand on Google Adwords, but Judge Brinkema said "There is no evidence that this activity alone causes confusion."

Bottom line for you: You can bid on trademarked names, you just can't use those names in your ads.


I'm sure we won't hear the end of it for sure.

[Barti1987]

Ny Times Article

Afederal judge in Alexandria, Va., today dismissed a key claim in the trademark infringement suit brought against Google by Geico, the auto insurer owned by Berkshire Hathaway.

In a trial that began Monday, Geico argued that a Google policy allowing competitors to buy ads linked to searches for "Geico" and "Geico Direct" confuses Web surfers who are looking for Geico.

District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, responding to a motion by Google for summary judgement on the issue, ruled that there was not enough evidence that the policy confuses consumers. Google filed its motion after Geico rested its case.

Christine Tasher, a spokeswoman at Geico in Chevy Chase, Md., was unable to provide immediate comment.

David C. Drummond, vice president and general counsel at Google in Mountain View, Calif., called the ruling a victory for consumers, alluding to Google's argument that Web surfers deserve all the information provided by search results and relevant paid ads from all parties.

"It confirms that our policy complies with the law, particularly the use of trademarks as keywords," Mr. Drummond said. "This is a clear signal to other litigants that our keyword policy is lawful."

The ruling today does not directly affect other trademark infringement cases pending against Google, filed by American Blind & Wallpaper Factory and a computer-repair company called Rescuecom, based on claims similar to those made by Geico.

"It will not be binding precedent," said Sheldon H. Klein, a partner and intellectual property lawyer at Arent Fox in Washington. Other judges may make different rulings, with appeals likely in any event, he said: "That's how cases get to the Supreme Court."

The speed of the ruling surprised some analysts.

"It's sort of a lightning-fast conclusion," said David M. Garrity, a financial analyst at Caris & Company, an investment firm in New York. "From the standpoint of Google shareholders, significant legal uncertainty is removed."

The ruling is the first in American courts to address whether Google can sell ads linked to trademarked search terms. Until April, Google prevented marketers from using other companies' trademarks as triggers for their own ads if the trademark holder complained. That month, however, it decided to allow trademarks as keywords, regardless of any complaints.

In a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission addressing the policy change, Google warned that possible trademark infringement lawsuits could result.

"Adverse results in these lawsuits may result in, or even compel, a change in this practice which could result in a loss of revenue for us, which could harm our business," Google said.

The Geico suit originally also named Overture Services, the Yahoo unit that sells ads on Yahoo's search results screens, but Overture settled the case out of court at the end of November. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

The judge has yet to rule on another claim by Geico, that Google is liable for trademark infringement when it lets marketers buy ads that use trademarked names in the ad copy. Google executives have said they remove such ads when trademark holders complain.

But the contest over keyword searches was what mattered most to Google, which collected 51 percent of its $805.9 million in third-quarter revenue from selling ads that are displayed on-screen next to search results. The company went public in August with an initial offering that sold a small percentage of its shares and raised $1.67 billion.

Long, but interesting..

Peace,

[The Dude]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

[JayC]

In my opinion: good news.

[RossH]

Definantly good news *pet his google adsense account*

[Der Meister]

Seems reasonably to me. Lets say a news site has COMPANY A mentioned in the article, and COMPANY B from the same field has bet on COMPANY A's name, so then COMPANY B will appear in the ad. Now lets say it's a published magazine, COMPANY B notices COMPANY A's add in the magazine, and then buys add space in that magazine too. It is a simple competition, and COMPANY B does not infriges any trademark, since they do not associate themselves with COMPANY A nor they pretend to work under their tradermark.

Tried to explain my opinion as clear as possible, sorry if it sounds confusing.

[PeterGH]

I remember when MCHost were doing this for the HTTPme and Voxtreme brand. They didn't make it clear the link would take them to MCHost.

Personally I don't see that as morally right at least, and most certainly shouldn't be allowed.

However if the ad made sure the user knew it wouldn't take them to the company searched for, well that's ok!