Keyword copyright claims

How can I fight the big guys on this?

[BriGuy]

Hi guys:

I just rolled out a few TheseWidgets ThisModel campaign to coincide with a TheseWidgets release that I got wind of. I had the ads all ready to go, and for a while they performed INCREDIBLY well.

Unfortunately, TheseWidgets decided to assert their copyright on the term ThisModel, which happens to be in my keywords AND my Ad Title (I wouldn't want people who wanted ThatModel to get an ad for ThisModel or AllModels, that decreases ROI).

Now, I'm not advertising OtherWidgets brand stuff with this keyword, which I would concede is a legitimate reason to protect the ThisModel term with a copyright assertion.

My best guess is that they'd prefer to sell ThisModel widgets at the TheseWidgetsStore, and have AdWords guide them there instead of to other sites.

But my mind boggles at the thought that I'M PAYING to advertise their widgets, and my success and their success are linked. After all, I dont make money if people don't buy widgets.

I also have a feeling that PopularShoppingSite.com (where I send the clickers to) probably converts better than TheseWidgets' TheseWidgetsStore converts. It seems like they're throwing money away by locking out others from selling their widgets.

I'd like to know how I should go about resolving this. I don't feel that I'm infringing on TheseWidgets' sales, in fact, I've sold quite a few widgets with money out of my pocket. It's in my best interest to make sure their widgets sell well, and I'm sure it's their intention too. I'd like to raise a fuss about this, but I'm not sure how I should do it, and if I did, if it would change anything. Can a small-potato AdWords guy like me really stand up to a publicly-traded corporation?

Also, am I wrong to think they'll lose money based on this decision? I'm sure they make more per widget selling on their site than selling on others. Of course, if their widgets have to be sold at clearance prices later on (which is entirely possible given TheseWidgets' quick development/production cycle), they won't make as much money off ThisModel widgets either. I really don't know.

Any comments/suggestions you guys have would be much appreciated.

[tedster]

I've had a parallel situation in print advertising. In my experience, the key was getting into a real conversation. Once I was able to talk to the marketing/sales force, then the legal copyright protection squad stopped sending me their boilerplate -- because the sales I was generating were doing their company good and the sales department knew it.

They just asked me to follow certain guidelines (which I was happy to do) and we got along famously.

YMMV - depending on the company you're dealing with. But I'd say it's worth following up for a bit. The more you can stay away from an adversarial position, the better you are.

[NFFC]

What tedster said.

I would add that it prolly isn't about $ or sales, they have to protect their brand and be_seen_to_protect_their_brand. If you can get with that mindset then talk to them.

[Ally_Cat]

There *may* be a fair use distinction you can appeal to AdWords with - *if* the product is not idenifiable without the branding. Likely AdWords will side with the trademark holder, to avoid getting in the middle of a trademark dispute - but if you can prove that the trademark *is* the product (and nothing without) then you could get the term back.

If you have time, start reading through some of the trademark cases posted in various places online - you might find something to suggest a direction.

[woop01]

I would assume that they don't want you bidding on that term because if somebody is alredy looking for the product, they don't need the help of affiliates to get the customer. Example...

Person A knows they want a Widgetco Widget so they go to Google to look up sources for a Widgetco Widget. Of course, if Widgetco has their act together, they will appear #1 in the SERPS but if you bid on "Widgetco Widget" there is a chance that Person A will click on your link. Widgetco didn't need your help in getting Person A to find their site and doesn't feel like they should pay you for a lead that they actually generated through their own branding.

[added: In response to finding loopholes to get around it, why would you want to do that in an affiliate relationship? If you become too big a PITA, wouldn't they just shut your account down?]

[BriGuy]

Woop:

I'm actually an affiliate for a different company. My guess is that the company I represent probably sells more PDAs from their site than the copyright people sell from theirs. They're both about the same on the SERPs list (one product I advertise has my affiliate parent company higher, another has the copyright holder's higher, but both are ususally one after the other). I think that most people would probably want to see both ads on the search page instead of just the copyright holder's.

Since they aren't my affiliate parent company, I don't really see the harm in possibly finding a way around this, though.

Ally:

The problem is that the trademark isn't EXACTLY the product. These products have further model numbers (not asserted under the copyright) that further distinguish them from each other. The names that are currently restricted are two product lines geared towards different people, each with more than one model in each line.