You should not be able to use tradmarked and copyrighted terms as AdWords. We had to send Google, Overture et al copies of our trademark etc to get them to pull ads for companies using our name to grab clients.
Subscribe to HRA Now!
Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE!
www.CustomReportSharing.com
From the folks who brought you High Rankings!
More SEO Content
International SEM | Social Media | Search Friendly Design | SEO | Paid Search / PPC | Seminars | Forum Threads | Q&A | Copywriting | Keyword Research | Web Analytics / Conversions | Blogging | Dynamic Sites | Linking | SEO Services | Site Architecture | Search Engine Spam | Wrap-ups | Business Issues | HRA Questions | Online Courses
Sponsored Content
Louis Vuitton Sues Google (associated Press)
Started by
websage
, Oct 24 2003 01:59 PM
17 replies to this topic
#16
AussieWebmaster
-
- Active Members
-
- 505 posts
HR 5
- Location:Brooklyn, NY
Posted 27 October 2003 - 06:53 PM
#17
awall19
-
- Active Members
-
- 502 posts
Peanut Butter Lover
Posted 27 October 2003 - 10:55 PM
I do not buy the lawsuits. Its flat out control of speech. Many times affiliates for that company are the ones doing the selling. After all google is mathematically driven. If I search and click on an add that says one thing then sends me to a different place, I will leave.
Surely if these companies gave mathematics and the general laws of economics time enough to play out their own affiliates would be using this ad space vice other competitors.
If the competitor has such a competitive advantage to where they can convert better posing as you than you can being yourself, does that not indicate other business problems within the company that is suing?
Technology is changing the world, people are trying to hold onto what was a past success and well they will soon find it fails.
Surely if these companies gave mathematics and the general laws of economics time enough to play out their own affiliates would be using this ad space vice other competitors.
If the competitor has such a competitive advantage to where they can convert better posing as you than you can being yourself, does that not indicate other business problems within the company that is suing?
Technology is changing the world, people are trying to hold onto what was a past success and well they will soon find it fails.
#18
OldWelshGuy
-
- Moderator
-
- 4,713 posts
Work is Fun
- Location:Neath, South Wales, UK
Posted 28 October 2003 - 03:24 AM
We have had cases recenty in the nUk of 'grey imports' thats where the goods being sold (denim Jeans in this case) were LEGALLY MANUFACTURED goods, but due to the price fixing by the trademark holders were being sold at a far higher price in the uk.
An authorised dealer got hold of these jeans and sold them in the uk, the trademark holder sued, and won their case for sellin (wait for it) counterfiet goods? their argument being that the items in question were not mde for the UK market so the dealer had no right to sell them.
Recently however Tesco decided enough was enough, and they started doing the same, only this time tesco are not an authorised dealer, they were sued, and Yesco won out, as the courts decided it was monopoly price fixing, and that the dealer had no rights to restrict the movement or sale of goods anywhere in the UK, at last justice was done.
MY POINT? well at no time was the transport company sued for actually bringing in the goods, nor the ferry comapany for trasporting the wagon carrying the goods, so why sue google? surely it is the instigator that gets sued not the carrier.
An authorised dealer got hold of these jeans and sold them in the uk, the trademark holder sued, and won their case for sellin (wait for it) counterfiet goods? their argument being that the items in question were not mde for the UK market so the dealer had no right to sell them.
Recently however Tesco decided enough was enough, and they started doing the same, only this time tesco are not an authorised dealer, they were sued, and Yesco won out, as the courts decided it was monopoly price fixing, and that the dealer had no rights to restrict the movement or sale of goods anywhere in the UK, at last justice was done.
MY POINT? well at no time was the transport company sued for actually bringing in the goods, nor the ferry comapany for trasporting the wagon carrying the goods, so why sue google? surely it is the instigator that gets sued not the carrier.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
