37 replies to this topic

[jehochman]

Alan, in the US we have a fair use doctrine. If I own a Jeep and am trying to sell it, I have an absolute right to use the word "Jeep" in my ad. If I am selling Fords, I can even say, "Buy Ford, 20% less expensive than comparable Jeep models." Do you think Google are being overly strict in order to kiss the behinds of their largest advertisers?

One thing to be careful of is that Google's broad match may consider a brand name like Vonage to be a synonym for a generic term like VoIP. I believe that running "VoIP" would only trigger phrases that use that word (not synonyms).

I guess I'm the odd man out when it comes to advertising on competitors.

[cline]

Do you think Google are being overly strict in order to kiss the behinds of their largest advertisers?

No. I think this was part of the Geico settlement. Given that Google reviews and approves ads before they go online, and has an extensive list of editorial rules they enforce, there's some ambiguity around whether Google has a responsibility to prevent deceptive uses of trademarks. Consequently, I suspect that their policy of allowing trademark holders to petition Google to prevent the use of the trademark in ad copy was their choice of methods for addressing that ambiguity and drawing a bright line. Personally I believe it was regrettable choice with regard to trademark policy, but operationally it does make good business sense for Google.

Re whether targeting for "voip" might be expanded broadmatched to a term such as "vonage", it can. I have sent my AdWords reps dozens of instances like this. Note that I even pointed out to the complaining competitor that even if I did remove their brand name from the keyword targeting that Google might itself chose to display the advertiser's ad on their brand name.

There are factors that determine whether competitive brand-name keyword targeting will be successful. The greater the degree to which the advertiser represents a fungible substitution for the brand name and the lower the brand loyalty, the better this technique works. If the brand name is used as part of the early shopping process, the better this works. Once the shopper is way down the decision funnel and has made a firm decision on a brand, the technique tends not to work.

[donp]

Offering ads on competing sites has proven very successful for me in several campaigns. I think of my products/services as a clear "alternative" for the search terms.
An example, for the keywords "mars vacation rentals" I would offer an ad with the headline: "Think Venus Vacations" Explore the romance and excitment - fun vacation activities for the entire family". I do get the cost of these ads bumped pricewise, so the search companies know what's going on. (Google had great $ quarter last quarter, after all)

This results in a pretty targeted viewer that you may never have appealed to if you keep concentrating on Mars only. The rules here are pretty well understood and it should be self-evident that tricking a viewer to your site is very counterproductive in obtaining conversions.

I see that the term "Band Aid" has no competing sites offering alternative products in Google - it may be that they won't let another competing company on the sponsored listing. I would like to see some more on these types of terms, might have to reseach this a bit more some day...

[redsonia!]

I have a quick question to see if I understand this correctly. If I am selling toys from xxxx company and they are a well known brand, is it correct that I can bid on their brand name as a keyword, such as xxxx's Educational Toys. But I cannot use their name in the text of the ad? So, for the text of the ad, I could not make the statement that "We carry a wide variety of educational toys from xxxx, yyyy,..." etc?

[DanThies]

Google can't afford to deal with the grey areas. It's easier to just do what they're doing. Since they are selling the ad space, they can pretty much apply whatever editorial standards they want.

Even trademark terms do end up in ads, with dynamic keyword insertion.

[cline]

Even trademark terms do end up in ads, with dynamic keyword insertion.

Not if the trademark holder formally requests AdWords to prevent it. Of course, a lot of these slip through AdWords editorial, but if anyone points them out to AdWords, the keywords get disapproved.

[Alan Perkins]

Alan, in the US we have a fair use doctrine. If I own a Jeep and am trying to sell it, I have an absolute right to use the word "Jeep" in my ad. If I am selling Fords, I can even say, "Buy Ford, 20% less expensive than comparable Jeep models." Do you think Google are being overly strict in order to kiss the behinds of their largest advertisers?

That rule does not seem to apply in the UK. Certainly when I check the trademark in question, there are many more ads in the US than there are in the UK. Like I said, it's anti-competitive ... but perhaps our European anti-competitive laws aren't quite so obvious as your American ones.

Given that Google reviews and approves ads before they go online, and has an extensive list of editorial rules they enforce, there's some ambiguity around whether Google has a responsibility to prevent deceptive uses of trademarks. Consequently, I suspect that their policy of allowing trademark holders to petition Google to prevent the use of the trademark in ad copy was their choice of methods for addressing that ambiguity and drawing a bright line. Personally I believe it was regrettable choice with regard to trademark policy, but operationally it does make good business sense for Google.

I'm all against deceptive uses of trademarks. But I'm equally against their application for anti-competitive purposes.

[TheGorilla]

okay, I know Google says in their policy that you shouldn't bid on someone else's trademark (right...?), but it does look like they're going to do much about it.

I have a potential client who wants to bid on a name brand that they don't currently sell. I don't really feel right about this. I know I have another client who is really pissed someone is bidding on their name, so I'm at both ends here.

Anyway, I guess I'm wondering what you all think about this. Do you do it?

I can give you a really good one. You run the risk of being sued. My company was recently utilized by PeachTree Settlement funding doing SEM research and discovery (working with Peachtree & Google attorneys) defending in the now famous JG Wentworth meta tag case as reported by InformationWeek and Search Engine Watch. Peachtree used the JG Wentworth trademark name in its Meta-Tag keywords and its Adwords campaigns. Case file here. It cost them plenty, over 6 figures. Is this good enough ? Show them this.

[Alan Perkins]

Welcome to the forums, TheGorilla.

I can give you a really good one. You run the risk of being sued. ... Case file here. It cost them plenty, over 6 figures.

Yes, but the case ended as follows:

AND NOW, this 4th day of January 2007, upon consideration of defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12( B )( 6 ), plaintiff's response, and defendant's reply thereto, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is ORDERED that defendant's motion is GRANTED and plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.
The CLERK OF COURT is DIRECTED to close this case statistically.

In other words, the action was unsuccessful. But you're correct - being sued can be expensive, even if you are in the right.

[TheGorilla]

Welcome to the forums, TheGorilla. Yes, but the case ended as follows:In other words, the action was unsuccessful. But you're correct - being sued can be expensive, even if you are in the right.

Ahhh so true. They were lucky. It cut's both ways. What did I learn? You thumb your finger into a brand eye and you'll attract bullets. This cost them several million dollars.. Hummm Yea they won allright.

Edited by TheGorilla, 05 February 2007 - 08:48 AM.

[Jbrookins]

I have a quick question to see if I understand this correctly. If I am selling toys from xxxx company and they are a well known brand, is it correct that I can bid on their brand name as a keyword, such as xxxx's Educational Toys. But I cannot use their name in the text of the ad? So, for the text of the ad, I could not make the statement that "We carry a wide variety of educational toys from xxxx, yyyy,..." etc?

Sure you can. This situation only applies if they have requested their trademark embargoed. Otherwise, it's free use (well, Google won't stop you, but the law still dictates how you can use it.).

Also, if you're an authorized dealer, the manufacturer can notify Google that you permission to use it.

[TheGorilla]

Sure you can. This situation only applies if they have requested their trademark embargoed. Otherwise, it's free use (well, Google won't stop you, but the law still dictates how you can use it.).

Also, if you're an authorized dealer, the manufacturer can notify Google that you permission to use it.

HI ALAN.. Thanks for the Welcome.. Also a point of interest (and the reason why Peachtree won) They never displayed the JGW trademark name, had they done so they would have lost I think.

[Alan Perkins]

I agree.

However, there are certain circumstances (such as you sell Jeeps, yet Jeep is a trademarked term) where you should be allowed to use trademarks both as trigger terms and in the ad text. Here in the UK, manufacturers are being allowed to use their trademarks to prevent sellers of their products from advertising. That's not right.

Note: Jeep was jehochman's example and is not (necessarily) the brand that's giving me grief.

[jehochman]

Offtopic

Jeeps used to be wonderful cars. I had an AMC Jeep from 1987 that I drove for 17 years, and then sold for $2500. It's probably still on the road somewhere.

It would have sucked if I couldn't have used the brand name in my ads. Yes, I sold it online.

[cline]

but the case ended as follows:In other words, the action was unsuccessful. But you're correct - being sued can be expensive, even if you are in the right.

That was exactly the threat made to my client. The much larger company threatened to sue my much smaller company even though they were almost certain to lose the suit solely in order to inflict large legal expenses on my client. They were quite explicit about the threat. For the large company the cost and business distraction of the suit would not be significant. For my client it would cause a serious management distraction and loss of of financial resources.

Even I, as much of a consumerist proponent of trademark keyword targeting as I am, recommended to the client to cave in on this threat.

A couple of years ago the exact same thing happened with another of my clients. A much larger company making the same threat to a much smaller company. However, the smaller company really needed to trigger on the trademark due to the nature of their offer. The business case said we should take the risk of being sued. We brought in legal counsel and prepared for the worst. We told the big company that we wouldn't and that we were willing to fight in court. The big company did nothing.