Basically, GM made a call to television viewers to "Google" the brand name of one of their vehicles. Mazda then bought (bidded) on that brand name for Google Adwords.
TV-to-Web advertising strategies seem to be targeting specific URL's, but also inviting viewers to do a search.
Is this a "questionable" tactic by Mazda?
steve
Can AWG confirm the legalities or guidelines for this? If this is allowed, everyone will start doing it, surely?
Disputes over trademarks generally come down to the question of whether a resonable person would be misled or confused as to the source of goods or services.
Thus, the courts would probably allow a candy to be called GoogleFruit, but might not allow a search-engine website to call itself Gaagle.
Having ads for a competing products appear when a user searches on a trademarked term doesn't inherently cause consumers to be misled or confused as to the source of goods or services. That could only occur if the ad insufficiently identifies the product.
It might be an issue if a user searchs for a GM car, and an ad comes up with the name of that car, "get information here", and a domain name that includes "GM".
But if it is just a competitor advertising their product, and their product is clearly identified - there is no misleading or confusion as to the source.
And, in the U.S. that is the only purpose of a trademark.
What is it about British trademark law that is so different? It must offer some broader protection than this.
1: Why on earth is the GM brand telling folks to "Google <brand name>" in the TV ads in the first place, instead of just directing the viewer to <brandname.com>?
The only logical thing I can think of is there must be a co-op deal on sharing the ad costs.
Of course it could be that they just think the TV viewers are too stupid to be able to type <brand.com> into the address bar on their browsers. That would be really sad, but perhaps enlightening.
2: Regarding the Ford brand using the GM brand name in ads and bidding. If I'm right this is a comparative situation like "brand vs brand", would that make a difference from a trademark and trademark use point of view?
Mazda bought the words "Pontiac" and "Pontiac Solstice" to help build exposure for their MX-5 Miata, which is the Pontiac Solstice's chief rival (they're both roadster, two-seaters).
Of course the idea backfired on them since Mazda took those words and used them to their advantage!
But the questions arise about bidding and what words a company is allowed to bid on. Bidding on competitor brand keywords can be an effective, but does it matter if toes are stepped on?
Think about this: How many of us have stuffed META tags with keywords (or exact names) of our competitors? If someone is searching for, "Jim's Boat Shop", will it list your site on Google's first page?
I expect this "Tv-to-web" thing to continue. The Super Bowl takes place in the U.S. on Sunday and the trend of TV-to-web advertising will probably explode for someone out there. Brands that advertise during the Super Bowl usually see extreme surges in traffic on their websites during the following two days.
