We all know that Google (Yahoo as well) has allowed competitors to buy keywords of competitors trademarked terms to advertise there products.
According to Business Week, Google starting June 4, will allow advertisers in about 200 countries to purchase rival trademarks as keywords to trigger display of “sponsored search” ads on Google. Honda, for instance, could bid to have one of its ads displayed when a consumer searches the term “Toyota.”
In recent years some companies have sued Google or the competing company, saying the practice is a form of trademark infringement.
The decision to implement the strategy more widely suggests that Google is confident it is operating on sound legal footing.
“Following a global legal review, we have made the changes in countries whose legal and business practices are consistent with making the change,” Google spokesman Ben Novick.
Right now members of the European Union are not on the list of allowed countries.
In April a U.S. appeals court said a patent-infringement claim by computer repair company Rescuecom could go forward, (you can read about this case here).
Google is appealing the loss of an infringement case in France to LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton but has won similar cases in Germany.
Google’s policy, implemented in the U.S. and Canada in 2004, bars advertisers from using others’ trademarks in the text of the ad itself but does permit it in the unseen keywords used to display the ad in cases where the keyword is used in a search. After adopting the same policy in the United Kingdom and Ireland last year, Google has now decided to extend it virtually worldwide.
I don’t have a problem with that.
Toyota does not own the Google search results page for the word Toyota so they should be able to sell any ads they want there.
Say I have JapaneseCars.com and have a Toyota page featuring Toyota news and information and put up an adsense block or a direct advertisement from Nissan?
I would be infringing on Toyota’s trademark? I just don’t see it.
Sure, companies will complain and sue and maybe even win in some states or countries but generally speaking it seems legit for Google to show any ads they want on any Google pages.
I have to agree with Rob. The person searching on Google knows that they’re clicking on a Honda ad instead of a Toyota one in example — it’s not like there’s anything misleading. I can see which Toyota wouldn’t like this, but like Rob said, they don’t own the Toyota Google search results page.
plentyoffish website, all his ads on his site are competitors. He doesnt care and makes a fortune.
Nothing wrong with it…….but you can just bet that Google is on the way to become the company everybody loves to hate.
John Berryhill gave this example at one of the Traffic conferences as it applies to search engines.
John used the example of someone going into a drug store to buy Advil. But, when he/she arrives at that section, the customer noticed a number of other brands (competitors) right next to Advil including the store brand. The drug store knew that some of the people looking for Advil would buy the other brands.
Is the store brand infringing on the TM of Advil since they placed their product next to the name brand?
(John, correct me if I mis-quoted you.)
thats great news, hope it expends into the US
I’m the lone dissenter so far. I feel this is wrong, and should not be allowed. This will allow a larger, more wealthy competitor to “knock out” all the smaller competition. A Honda & Toyota comparison doesn’t really demonstrate the true downside of this equation.
Think about all the major international corps who can begin using anti-competitive practices. Ace Hardware, obviously much wealthier than Jim’s Smalltown Tools, would outbid Jim for the keyphrase “Jims Smalltown Tools” (his established trademark). Jim can never outbid Ace Hardware and his ads will never display. Ace Hardware’s use of his trademark actually cripples Jim’s business.
I would have no problem with Ace Hardware being high bidder for all varieties of generic hardware keywords, but to take hostage “Jim’s Smalltown Tools” seems like clear exploitation of a trademark that acquired value through years of hard work. They are actually damaging someone else’s trademark by taking it hostage and blocking its legitimate use.
I’m all for it. If these multi-billion dollar companies don’t like it they can cry about it. They wouldn’t hesitate to do it to you. Secondly, Adwords keywords are not unique like a domain name. If you buy Honda.com, you get to be the only person in the world with Honda.com and you can shut Honda out. With adwords, everyone can buy the same exact thing. So Honda should just outbid their competition if it is really that upsetting to them. I doubt it will affect their bottom line too much, although it will probably help out alot of other people alot.
The problem is when deceit is used, for example “XYZ is spyware! Download Spyware Removal,” or if it’s unclear that you’re clicking onto an unofficial site. As people have noted on past articles, many users do not even recognize the distinction of a sponsored result.
Trademark law is not an Intellectual Property hammer for companies. It’s purpose is consumer protection by preventing Company A from pretending to be associated with Company B.