Google Removing Trademark-Triggered Ads, Selectively

If a lawyer complains, they apparently nuke ads

[luckychucky]

(branching off from this thread:

[webmasterworld.com...] )

The lawyer I'd been fighting with just eMailed to tell me Google has removed my AdWords ad, which had used his client's trademark as an keyword trigger. This despite the fact that neither my ad nor website site ever mentioned or disparaged his client's company in any way whatsoever...Everything was, according to a recent federal ruling, entirely within the law.

I've got an eMail in to Google. I assume they'll probably just barf some standard boilerplate babble back at me. (and if my competitor can do it, I will too - I'm going to get my attorney to kick everyone's else's ads off the serps for my company too, then). I don't get it: Google fought and won the issue in court; why are they now acting as if they lost?

Related or not- check out how many fewer 'Geico' -triggered AdWords ads there are now. Used to be zillions. What's going on?

[cline]

Google's lost opportunity cost for running ads is trivial compared to the out-of-pocket costs of responding to a formal legal complaint.

[luckychucky]

WHOOPEE!
Google support got back to me today. Turns out my ad wasn't nuked...I had simply maxed-out my daily budget. Everything is perfectly fine. I increased the budget and the ad is now back up.

My competitor's attorney presumed Google had pulled the ad for legal reasons, or possibly in response to a complaint he may have lodged, but no-
All is well with Google. I'm happy.

[AdWordsAdvisor]

...Turns out my ad wasn't nuked...I had simply maxed-out my daily budget. Everything is perfectly fine. I increased the budget and the ad is now back up.

My competitor's attorney presumed Google had pulled the ad for legal reasons, or possibly in response to a complaint he may have lodged, but no...

Thanks for the follow up post, luckychucky.

I, for one, really appreciate hearing how things turn out!

AWA

[luckychucky]

AWA, it's reassuring to see Google reps actively involved, both here in a public forum, and on an individual level via customer service. Many kudos and many thanks-

While you're here: care to solve the riddle of the vanished 'Geico'-triggered ads, where before there were swarms?

[AdWordsAdvisor]

While you're here: care to solve the riddle of the vanished 'Geico'-triggered ads, where before there were swarms?

Luckychucky, I haven't really paid close attention to that keyword, so I don't have a genuine feel for the 'before vs. after' that you've described.

Given that the policy is the same as it ever was, I'm just guessing here - but here are two thoughts that occur to me:

* The policy, although the same, is being applied with particular care

* Perhaps advertisers who have used the keyword in the past explored other alternatives to be 'safe', and found that the alternatives worked better!

But as I've said, I'm just guessing. Maybe I should just be really straightforward and simply say that I don't know!

AWA

[luckychucky]

For clarification, enquiring minds want to know: are you a self-styled expert, or an actual Google employee?

[cline]

Perhaps since the court said that targeting trademarks was not an issue between the trademark holder and Adwords, Geico's lawyers have decided to go after the advertisers targeting "geico". A cease and dissist notice from a litigation-happy firm is certainly likely to scare lots of advertisers into submission.

[eWhisper]

Maybe it's time for a new AWA intro.

The first thread:
Who is awa? The introduction:
[webmasterworld.com...]

Milestone 1:
[webmasterworld.com...]

AWA Info Posts:
[webmasterworld.com...]

Milestone 2:
[webmasterworld.com...]

Next 1000 posts - time for the highlights pretty soon, he's getting close...

[luckychucky]

A cease and dissist notice from a litigation-happy firm is certainly likely to scare lots of advertisers into submission.

Yeah, but they didn't scare me. Well, at least at first they did. Then I asked him to clarify the validity of his request, which I did a bit icily, but still maintaining a cooperative tone. A bit surprised, he quoted to me from a case which in its own ruling verbiage flatly validated my right to place the ad, with no room for doubt. He tried to work from intimidation, not fact or law. I'm not swallowing it. Plus, I have the best intellectual property lawyers in the country on standby just in case, the same ones who work for all the major movie studios, nearby in Bevery Hills. I can counter-intimidate if it really comes down to it. I don't want to, and looks like I won't have to. Everything seems quite clear in terms of law.

[AdWordsAdvisor]

This is too funny, eWhisper! I saw luckychucky's post, and went off to write a response. On a hunch, I checked back before posting, and bingo! There you were, beating me to the punch as usual!

But since I wrote it, I'll post it anyway - even if it's not as informative as yours...

---------- Outdated post follows-------------

For clarification, enquiring minds want to know: are you a self-styled expert, or an actual Google employee?

Heheh, good question. I'm an actual Google employee, and have been with AdWords since early June 2002.

Your question made me go looking for the post in which I was formally introduced by GoogleGuy, just for a stroll down memory lane. ;)

Here is that thread, if you want to take a look: [webmasterworld.com...]

------------ End outdated post --------------

AWA

[eWhisper]

:)

But somehow you're beating me on total posts, so you must be getting to something first...