Outside these areas they check both the keyword that triggered the ad and the ad copy.
[google.com...]
Upon hearing the news I promplty added a bunch of trademarks to clients' campaigns and I promptly got disapproval notices.
My Adwords rep says be patient and the system will be updated in the next few weeks.
FYI, Adwords has not yet cleared its system that automatically disapproves trademarks for which the trademark owner previously petitioned Adwords to block.
You are correct cline - sorry for the frustration. Please see posts #4 and #9 above for details on this subject.
AWA
Trademark infringement definition:
"Unauthorized use of a protected trademark or service mark, or use of something very similar to a protected mark. Generally infringement occurs when there is a likelihood of confusion in the average consumer. If a court determines that the average consumer would be confused, the owner of the original mark can prevent the other's use of the infringing mark and sometimes collect damages."
From:
[smallbiz.com...]
It's doubtful that a clearly labeled Burger King ad generated by a McDonald's keyword would confuse the average consumer.
Yes, trademarks came into use to prevent confusion NOT to prevent competition!
I think we all need a clear and applicable legal test case to set a precedent.
A case applying to the use of trademarks as trigger words by a direct competitor for an advert for their product which competes with the trademarked item which was searched for by the user.
As Google itself notes for this test case to be valid the visible advert itself should not in itself be in any way "passing off" or abusive so that the legal opinion can be restricted to the practice of using the trademark as a trigger for competing communications.
That would make the issue transparent allowing us to take decisive positions from knowledge.
I dont wish to run up a future liability in back dated damages just because I may in error perceive the change of Google policy as being a certain confirmation that this new position is free from any exploitable liability.
If I decide to take action on this now, as is often the case in business decision making I will be making decisions without being in possession of all the facts. This is a situation we all often find ourselves in and those taking or not taking action must simply weigh up the balance of opportunity and threat.
Google's own language, that which I have seen to date anyhow, does not seem certain enough in this regard to discount all risk of legal action as countermeasures actually winning the case.
Their assurance to the extent that they would cover any liability including damages arising would certainly be most reassuring :-)
In fact it would make the clarity of a legal precedent quite uneccesary.
However assuming it is unlikely they will put their money where their mouth is in this respect :-) ..
You guys go on ahead :-)
I will for sure let you in front of me to serve as my test case much in the same way as I usually positively decide not to be the very fastest car on the road in the hope that those faster than me may first be picked on by the authorities allowing me to sail on by unscathed but now aware of where they were hiding for the next time down that road :-)
I am not saying that I know you are wrong.
You may well be right.
I have been known to be wrong on many things :-) and am often accused of error.
Just dont even come to me with your hands out for sympathy if you do face the costs of legal action as a result of your own haste to exploit a possible opportunity :-)
All the best to you all in your endeavours and please dont risk more than you have to lose as not being able to pay your bills can be seen in many circles as quite bad manners :-)
heh.
Google is already embroiled in litigation on both sides of the Atlantic over claims that its pay-for-placement service, Adwords, lets clients hijack their competitors' trademarks.
But AXA, which posted $US86 billion in revenue last year, is the largest company yet to put the matter before a judge.
The growing mass of litigation over trademarks in advertising could weigh on Google's expected multibillion dollar stock market launch, experts say.
"It's definitely a threat to Google, but it's also a threat to anybody who sells keyword-linked advertising — including Overture and eBay," said Danny Sullivan, editor of the online newsletter Search Engine Watch."
The Associated Press
More at [tinyurl.com...]
[sorry, off-topic rant]
wow, talk about biased reporting!
I suppose it would have been too straightforward to simply say Google would "let client bid on their competitors' trademarks."
Nay, it has to be hijacking trademarks... sigh, it sounds so much more dramatic, close to terrorism.
[/rant]
Google probably perceives that it is in Google’s interests to stop acting as defacto policeman on trademark disputes in Adwords and probably that allowing trademarks as trigger words for competitive adverts may increase their advertiser revenues.
The news publisher in question probably believes that their title rather than yours :-) will give them more readers and therefore more advertising revenue also :-)
However this is a French case so as pointed out in another thread it will not set precedent in the US and or Canada. For that we still need a local case to be heard in those jurisdictions.
I will just add that:
It is quite logical that anyone can bid on "online auction sites" or "books for sale" because these are descriptive terms for a type of service or product.
This is similar to the argument that anyone can bid on the term "motor car" as it also is a description of a type of product.
Because it seems presently in Google’s interest to change this policy does not definitely make it in the interest of trademark owners or for that matter consumers.
If consumers search for a specific brand named item they could certainly expect to find sellers of that brand named product or service.
If consumers search for a product or service by its generic description they could probably expect to find lots of differently branded offerings.
If you are looking for a vacuum cleaner at the moment there are lots available.
If you are looking for a Dyson, there are not.
Because Google feels some of its US and Canadian searchers may not be well informed enough too realise the specific difference between searching for a "Dyson" and searching for a "Vacuum cleaner", does not necessarily mean Google can legally permit competitors to potentially devalue the trademark Dyson by serving adverts from competing brands in response to that specific search.
That is for the US and Canadian market and their legislators to decide.
I am grinning now :-) but if those consumers cant grasp the difference between a brand name and a description, at this stage of the development of the American and Canadian free markets :-) the ensuing melee that may result from such a policy change is likely I think to confuse the very idea of a trademark or business name in the minds of US and Canadian customers.
btw.
1. I have no connection with Dyson or Google etc.
2. Comparison sites are certainly an interesting issue in the debate.
3. Please read my post above, I think we have not yet the test case we need for clarity on this issue in the US and Canadian Markets
Of course the Overtures and googles of the world would not have nearly as profitable a business if they were unable to sell trademarked words. But the reason those words are so valuable is because of the marketing dollars that the owner invests - not the affiliate that unethicaly purchases them, or the search engine the unethically provides the platform for them to be bought and sold.
In the end, justice will prevail.
the affiliates that ride those coatails by bidding on trademark keywords are leeches on brand marketing dollars, adding zero value to a merchant. We would have gotten those sales with or without the affiliate.
The affiliate aspect is pretty much a moot point. If you don't value your affiliates bidding on your trademarked terms, just amend your affiliate program terms of service to forbid that.
Now if competitors want to bid on your trademarked terms, you'll have to wait to see if the courts feel the same way about it as you. I'm not sure I'd be terribly confident.
So how is this any different? Why shouldn't I be able to use a "company x" keyword and show an ad saying why my product is better than theirs?
Google requires you to 'prove' your statements with verification from a third party. You can do a legitimate comparison.
Recently (last year and a half), when we ourselves waded into the AdWords pool, we found several competitors bidding on our TM and immediately moved to protect it. Since then, it has been a constant game of report the abusers.
Thanks to JBrown for his post on trademark definition. The intention is (supposed) to be to protect the public from being MISLED. I cant give you a bottle that looks like a coke bottle, smells like coke, and tell you its coke when its not. But I CAN tell you its drpepper and its better. I was especially moved to write because I urge you to stop wasting your time in "a constant game of report the abusers".
The only time you have a valid reason to report an abuser would be if he is selling a product/service which he claims is yours and is NOT (or is too similar, like copying your logo).
So does that mean that we can expect a return to trademark stuffed meta tags in competitor websites.
Though it is a little like comparing oranges and tangerines, let me offer this:
Think of adsense keywords like the categories in the classified section of your newspaper.
If you have your mazda ad under 'autos-mazda' does that mean I can't put my honda-better-than-mazda ad under 'autos-mazda'? No.
Along the same line of comparison, Adsense keywords in a sense only trigger the 'category' the user is looking for.
It is up to your advert (now here you have an deserved advantage because YOU can use your well-branded well-known trademark in the ad) and the quality of YOUR product to do the rest.
Trademarks certainly do not guarantee you a monopoly on a subject and everything in that subject (though many well moneyed companies are able to nearly do this through lobbying, abuse of the legal system, lawsuit threats).
BUT, you do get the satisfaction that no one can legally mislead others into thinking they are buying your product or service when they are not.
Hello BXXXX,
Thank you for advertising with Google AdWords. After reviewing your
account, I have found that one or more of your ads or keywords does not
meet our guidelines. The results are outlined in the report below.
----------------------------------------------
Campaign: 'Campaign #3,' Ad Group: 'XXXXXXXXXXXX'
----------------------------------------------
KEYWORD(S): nissan maxima parts, nissan car parts, nissan import parts,
auto parts nissan, nissan altima parts, nissan sentra parts, nissan
pathfinder parts, infiniti auto parts, nissan auto parts, nissan parts
Action taken: Disapproved
Issue(s): Keyword trademark term
~~~~~~~~~
SUGGESTIONS:
-> Keywords: We have disapproved the trademark
term "Nissan", "Infiniti" and/or variations of this keyword in your
Google AdWords campaign.
____________________________________________
As Webcat fails to understand is that you can use TM to describe the item for sale. If you have for example an air filter that fits a Nissan Maxima , the TM becomes descriptive. Under the Lanham act this is a valid use of the owners TM.
Acceptable. Air filter for nissan maxima
Not acceptable. Nissan Parts
I am a reseller of Nissan parts.. Should I not be able to use the TM to sell Nissan Parts? Nissan Says since I am not a dealer I cant use adwords advertising. This is restriction of trade in my opinion!
So to block ads resricting description is a violation of the first amendment of free speach according to the 5th circut court of appeals. However since there is no case law on this for the internet big corps are using thier financial muscle to restrict trade using the TM issue.
HP and Nissan are the first big companies to challange Google on Adwords. And since Google is going public it appears they are just going to aviod a lawsiut at this time and comply.
The affiliate aspect is pretty much a moot point. If you don't value your affiliates bidding on your trademarked terms, just amend your affiliate program terms of service to forbid that.
There are many companies that restrict affiliate bidding on their trademarks. There has been some speculation that Google's new trademark stance would cause some re-evaluation of this practice.
I just got my first email from one such company announcing that they were now rescinding their restricted bidding policy. They even provided a convenient list of all of their previously restricted words and phrases to make bidding easier.
Reason given for the about-face: Google's new trademark policy.
For example a reseller or middleman buys something and sells it on.
In doing this they have to be approved at least from the person they have bought it from for the purchase to have been permitted.
That does not mean that they are owned by the original company that produced that thing, if indeed any thing was produced.
Amazon sell books.
They sell a book by Writer Smith.
Are amazon an affiliate of Smith?
Or are they just a reseller a trader selling on their own account?
They can sell Smiths books if they can buy them legally from someone who is not Smith, that may mean that Smith may not approve of Amazon selling his books but if they legally bought them they can sell them, they are a reseller a trader no more no less.
So I am not clear, what exactly is an affiliate?
It is not a question that I know the answer to so your assistance would be appreciated.
One merchant with an aff program filed something with Google that brought all their affiliates down who were bidding on the trademarked terms. They repeatedly sent out emails encouraging affilaites to bid on their trademarks so long as they did not out bid the one corporate listing.
The aff manager would say everything was good to go, the ad would go up, G would take them down, merchant would say bid away, G would take them down. It took 2 months and lots of lost revenue before things got straightened out.
Hopefull this new change will be ironed out more quickly since it will affect so many people.
In the context of the discussion here, most would probably define an affiliate as a person or company that directs traffic to the website of another business entity in exchange for some kind of bounty for any actions the referred traffic takes on the site (a percentage of sales, a flat payout per lead, etc..)
all the best
1 Google sells your trademark to anyone with the adwords system.
2 Someone clicks that adword link advertisement that was purchased as your trademark.
3 Google gets paid everytime someone clicks on your the add which has a trademark which leads to a competitor website.
Whos responsible for trademark violations?
BOTH, most importantly Google.
In my eyes, who consented google could use a company trademark for their gain nor the advertiser (competitor).
Both seem to be raping the benefits.
Can someone prove me wrong on this issue?
Regardless of googles "Its your own responsibility if you use someone elses trademark" rules.
I entirely feel it should be up to google to enforce it and police it 24/7 regardless of the costs.
This is why taking the search out of search engines and implementing advertiser ads on bidded keywords was destruction to the web. They basically took the search out of search engines and implemented favoured paid advertisers.
Secondly how do you think I would feel if I had to bid .50 cents on my own trademarked text which could be my products or even my company name?
I feel google more so is the service that is behind the trademark problem, rather than the company that advertised. I feel that without google using keyword bidding, this problem wouldnt exist and trademarks would be better protected.
I expect alot of lawsuits, if the trademarks are not enforced. More so to google than the end marketer.
Google is providing the service which makes money off your trademark text, each time an ad is clicked.
I thought I saw something about may 15th...
See links below for details:
What is Google's trademark policy? (There is a note here about the date.) [adwords.google.com...]
Trademark Complaint Procedure
[google.com...]
AWA
My understanding is that the beef is if, say, an ad for State Farm insurance came up on the right in the top spot when I type in "geico." BUT, it seems to me that the google system is already designed to make this disadvantageous, because if someone is already looking for "geico", they are not going to click on the state farm ad, thus the CTR will be too low for it to continue to run there.
Most everyone here already knows what a tricky game it can be to maintain ad & keyword relevancy, and I think these companies are ultimately wasting their time by suing over something they won't hurt them as much as they think it will.
