I realize that this is an evolving issue but I'm curious. I was not using the trademarked term in my ad just as a keyword. I am not a direct competitor. I have an information site relevent to this word which runs adsense but I am not wooing away customers to use my brand. When I search for "wigity" there is only one advertisement, the company that produces that product.
I have stopped using the keyword (no great loss as over a 7 day period of time I think 4 people came to my site from it) but at some level it seems unreasonable to think a company can keep themselves as the only one allowed to bid on a keyword, even if it is trademarked. (That troublesome Geico)
It wouldn't make any sense to thumb my nose at company X and continue using the word since any legal action on their part would cost me much more than the benefit I receive from using the trademarked term.
Anyone agree or disagree with my using the word or their request for me to stop using it?
Google or otherwise, the TM owner owns the TM and can make up his own rules based on advice from the legal counsel. eBay is mentioned frequently in this forum and in the AdSense forum for being an anomaly - you can be an affiliate and use their graphic or text ads on your site, but you can't repeat the same text ad in Adwords.
They may have contacted Google in the meantime if they are clued up.
This seems like a good place to provide links to the AdWords policy relating to trademarks. Please see the following, from the AdWords FAQ:
What is Google's trademark policy?
[adwords.google.com...]
Trademark Complaint Procedure
[google.com...]
AWA
-They will disallow trademark usage in an ad if the owner complains.
-They will not take action if the person is using it as a keyword.
-They encourage all trademark owners to resolve any issue directly with the advertiser.
Is that right AWA?
Is that right AWA?
That is essentially correct, WallyBob. However, it is important to note that the trademark complaint procedure differs depending on in which countries the trademark rights are held - as detailed in the pages linked-to above.
This can impact advertisers in different ways, depending on the countries to which they have targeted their ads.
...encourage all trademark owners to resolve any issue directly with the advertiser.
The reverse applies equally, of course - in that advertisers may wish to deal directly with the trademark owners - in asking for exceptions to any limitations set by the trademark owners.
AWA
This advice assumes you're in the USA. It would be different if you were in the UK.
How do you feel about this competitor? Are you on good terms. Are you in a clubby-type industry? If so, just do what they request. Don't piss them off.
Alternatively, do you hate them? Don't mind spending money on lawyers just to piss them off? Talk to your lawyer. I think they'll say keep doing it. Google has placed a big bet that you'll win. I think you'll win too.
IMHO you're best off having a gentleman's agreement not to keyword target advertising on each other's trademarks. IMO it's clearly anti-consumerist and is equilivant to price fixing, but at present such an agreement would generally be considered ethical.
Can the owner of Brandx ask that all ads with their TM in the search query not show? I guess that would be hard if someone typed in:
'Show me a low cost alternative to brand x'
At present it seems that Google will only disallow exact match keywords when a complaint has been lodged, or am I mistaken here?
At present it seems that Google will only disallow exact match keywords when a complaint has been lodged, or am I mistaken here?
This sort of thing is literally handled on a case-by-case basis by the review team, according to the exact details of the situation.
Exmoorbeast - for a good basic understanding of the policies (and the variables) involved, I'd point you to the two links in post #4 above - and the second one in particular. When reading these, you'll note a distinction between trademarked terms used as keywords, and trademarked terms used in ad copy. You'll also see an important distinction made between different countries in which trademark rights are held.
AWA
It does look like exact match on KW in creatives can be stopped but not phrase match or broad match in combination with other words in creatives, or can this be specifically requested? I notice some hotel groups have stopped 'hotel company' plus 'city name' which is not in itself or in combination a trademark.
Is that what you are saying, that it is done on a case by case basis?
