37 replies to this topic

[redsonia!]

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.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Jeremy. I thought I should be able to do that, but got confused by the discussion.

[TheGorilla]

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.

One can generate a locked URL with a few landing pages, grab the click and remove the libility from client and yourself as well... if its set up right. You know what I'm suggesting.

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?

Let me say this, at the Gorilla, we do this on both sides of the fence, we protect Brands and we USE other brands for client promotions. You will always get a letter of intent BEFORE the legal. You'll have time to respond in most cases. So it's worth a try if you need it. Just stay on top of it and be ready to stop if you have a challenge. I can say this because I get 1 or 2 a month. So you have room to play with it.

FYI... If you read all the NEW distributor contracts, you'll find this in the small print wihch is pretty much a standard today.

( Search Engine Prohibitions: PARTICIPANT will represent themselves on search engine results for related listings only as “AFFILIATE OF MARKETINGGORILLAS.NET,” meaning that PARTICIPANT'S metatags, text, and title tags cannot use OUR marks except as described above ("AFFILIATE OF MARKETINGGORILLAS.NET"). In addition, PARTICIPANT'S URL cannot contain Our marks or variations of OUR marks. That without limiting the foregoing, PARTICIPANT shall not purchase, use or bid for placement any of the Marks, as defined in Section 8, without limitation, MARKETINGGORILLAS.NET, or any variations or misspellings of the Marks, with any search engine. In addition, upon MARKETINGGORILLAS.NET request, PARTICIPANT will immediately cease bidding, purchasing or using any Marks and other terms used to promote the Affiliate Program and PARTICIPANT’s participation therein. Furthermore, MARKETINGGORILLAS.NET hereby reserves all legal and equitable remedies it may have for Participant's violation of Sections 7( and 8 and for any misuse or infringement of the Marks by Participant.

One can generate a locked URL with a few landing pages, grab the click and remove the libility from client and yourself as well... if its set up right... You know what I'm suggesting. Lastly, when buying domains for this purpose, buy them from Melbourne (Outside USA) in this manner, USA court orders for info have NO value this somehow pleases me and protects my client and the Gorilla.

[jehochman]

That's game theory for you. If you can convince the other side that you're ready to defend, and that you'll enjoy all the publicity, they may back down. Getting sued can profitable, sometimes. I think Aaron Wall came out ahead when he got sued. Jennifer Laycock certainly benefited from that pork situation.

[TheGorilla]

To finish protecting yourself or your client, make sure "site disclamier" includes the following;


Part of the site disclaimer
The information on hyperlink or referred to websites is not investigated by [Red Lederhosen] Network. No warranty or representation, express or implied, is given as to the accuracy or completeness of that information. In no event will [Red Lederhosen] Network, nor any of its members, associates, affiliates or advisors accept any liability with regard to the information contained in the [Red Lederhosen] Network website or any other hyperlinked or referred to websites.

That's game theory for you. If you can convince the other side that you're ready to defend, and that you'll enjoy all the publicity, they may back down. Getting sued can profitable, sometimes. I think Aaron Wall came out ahead when he got sued. Jennifer Laycock certainly benefited from that pork situation.

I agree with you if you're seeking a white hat solution. The bottom line, you can skin this cat many ways... knowing all the options really helps. I like the "white hat" approach best, but each client has different needs. So a good bag of tricks is needed to service different accounts.

[WSO]

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.

So I have a question about this. First, does only AdWords take "formal" requests to prevent it? How about Yahoo!? Anyone know? And in either case, what is proper way to make that request, formally?

I have a client who's brand was being bid on by a competitor. So we just bid on the competitor's brand, and got rejected by Yahoo, for content reasons (which was actually correct, so I'm not upset about that). But the competitor has nothing on their site about us or our brand--they're just trying to get our potential customers (which I wouldn't have a problem with if we were allowed to do the same). So what's the best way for me to request that Yahoo! review their listing on that keyword?

By the way, the brand we are talking about is not a common word. It's not even a real word at all, so it's not like someone could say that the competitor's site, while not mentioning our brand specifically, has content along the subject line of the keyword.

Thanks,

[Pianist718]

I've never seen a situation where bidding on somebody else's brand was cost effective. There are probably cases where that would work, but I think they are rare. If somebody is looking for Brand X, and you offer Brand Y, they are just going to swat you out of the way.

See how things are different in every industry? In our industry the biggest revenue keywords are competitor's brand names.

[scouseflip]

So I have a question about this. First, does only AdWords take "formal" requests to prevent it? How about Yahoo!? Anyone know? And in either case, what is proper way to make that request, formally?

I have a client who's brand was being bid on by a competitor. So we just bid on the competitor's brand, and got rejected by Yahoo, for content reasons (which was actually correct, so I'm not upset about that). But the competitor has nothing on their site about us or our brand--they're just trying to get our potential customers (which I wouldn't have a problem with if we were allowed to do the same). So what's the best way for me to request that Yahoo! review their listing on that keyword?

By the way, the brand we are talking about is not a common word. It's not even a real word at all, so it's not like someone could say that the competitor's site, while not mentioning our brand specifically, has content along the subject line of the keyword.

Thanks,

We have always had more luck with Google than Yahoo personally. We had a situation where a competitor was bidding on our Brand name (also our company name) with a text creative reading... 'Considering ____, Why not try ___ instead'. As you might imagine this was a little frustrating so we contacted the advertiser to politly request they desist. They didn't!

When we contacted Google they offered to contact the advertiser quickly, while Yahoo didnt want to know. The ad was removed shortly after.

Personally I think it's an underhand tactic employed by those who can not come up with genuine and creative ways of marketing themselves... Bitter you say? Well, maybe a bit!

[Alan Perkins]

'Considering ____, Why not try ___ instead'

That's pretty shabby, even if the landing page is a comparison of the two products. Generally, though, I don't see a problem with comparative advertising.

I'll give you two examples of where the trademark policies are really very confused, using publishing analogies:

1. Suppose a magazine ran a feature on the new Windows Vista, and it promoted this feature on the cover of the magazine. Suppose you bought the magazine and turned to the feature on Windows Vista. There, running alongside the editorial for Windows Vista, was an Apple ad that promoted an iMac and all the ways in which the iMac and its OS was superior to a PC running Windows Vista. Apple's agency knew that page was running a feature on Vista, and chose to place an iMac ad there. Any problem with this? There shouldn't be! Now, consider a Google SERP for the phrase "Windows Vista". It could be considered as equivalent to that magazine page. The natural results are equivalent to the editorial feature on Vista. The Adwords are equivalent to the ads alongside the feature. So, if there isn't a problem running an ad alongside the editorial in a magazine, then why is there in a SERP? Are we to say to magazine ad space sales staff "Hey, when you call Apple, you're not allowed to tell them you're running a feature on Windows Vista".
2. Can you imagine going to your local paper wanting to buy a second hand car, but the private, trade and franchise sellers of some manufacturers are not allowed to use the trademarks of those manufacturers (such as their name, or the models of the cars they sell) in order to advertise those cars? Ridiculous! Yet this exact scenario is perpetrated online, through Adwords.