Google Loses Trademark Dispute In France, Yay! About time! Options

[Jill]

A French court has ruled that Google must refrain from using the trademarks of European resort chain Le Meridien Hotels and Resorts to trigger keyword ads.

Google loses trademark dispute in France

[Hyperformance]

Nice catch Jill! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

This will have far reaching impact, even with appeals. Personally, I must say I agree. Without this basic protection online, what good is your Trademark if you can no longer protect it?

The yellow pages never allowed you to be found under your competitors name?

Please understand, I agree you can be found under their product type, but not their product name... IMO this is infringement, and riding the coat tails of potentially billions of dollars spent on Branding a company or product over the years, only to be beat-out online by someone else using your "good" name.

What do you all think?

- Scott

[qwerty]

I think French (or perhaps EU) law is apparently different from US law. I don't think this is going to change anything here.

[cline]

There was an excellent article in the Boston Globe a couple weeks ago about an extensive academic analysis that shows a strong correlation between how successful a country's economy is and on what set of principles their legal system is based upon. The analysis showed that countries with legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code were particularly likely to have unsuccessful economies, whereas those based on British Common Law were among the most successful . The reason for this was that Common Law gives more protection to the less powerful participants, such as shareholders and creditors.

So, it's not surprising that the French would view this matter differently and choose to take an anti-consumerist path.

[Shane]

I think what's best for the consumer should win out, and that's the view that Google has always taken -- religiously so. As much as it irritates me that someone can make money off my brand, as a consumer I would much rather be presented with choices, even when I'm searching for a particular brand name.

This issue exists in other areas as well, but it has never been debated there. For instance, I may see an advertisement for a product on TV and go to the store to purchase it. When I get there, I actually have my choice of several different products. One company's ad-spend got me to the store, but I could very well end up purchasing a product from a different company.

Choice is good for the consumer. In the long run, no one wins by restricting that choice.

[eragon]

Shane, you describe a perspective I hadn't considered before. Very interesting indeed. I do the same thing as well, but never really applied that concept to SEs, although I do like the choices too. I'm not completely sold on it because up until now I didn't like competitor ads coming up on my brand name, but you've definitely given me some food for thought. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbup1.gif)

[Hyperformance]

Hey Shane - where I do understand what you are saying, I have to disagree. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

"Choice is good for the consumer. In the long run, no one wins by restricting that choice."

I don't believe it is restricting anyone's choice here - allow me to give an example as well.

If I do a search for say "Nabisco ™", I should not find "General Mills ™". However, if I did my search for "crackers" I would expect to find all competitors. Make sense?

- Scott




(All Registered Trademarks are acknowledged, recognized and honored here and remain the sole property of their owner. Used only for the purpose of example) (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbup1.gif)

<added> Example repairs

This post has been edited by Hyperformance: Jan 21 2005, 01:51 PM

[qwerty]

Off-topic, but I believe Ritz is a trademark owned by Nabisco. I think Scott's point is that a search on a trademarked term shouldn't bring up the competitors of the owners of the term.

(And I don't really have an opinion on that.)

[Hyperformance]

Thanks Qwerty - Top of my head example... (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/omg.gif)

[linux_lover]

I think French (or perhaps EU) law is apparently different from US law. I don't think this is going to change anything here.

Biiiiiiiiiggggggggggg difference!

We are allowed to kill people with spoons, and drive on the left side of road here!

(IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)

[cline]

If I do a search for say "Nabisco ™", I should not find "Ritz ™".  However, if I did my search for "crackers" I would expect to find all competitors.  Make sense?

Not for me. If I do a search for, say, "Nabisco", I would expect to find ads giving alternatives to Nabisco, such as Keebler.

[Hyperformance]

Why is that Cline? You searched for Nabisco™? Now the engine results are NOT relevant to your search for Nabisco™?

Their (SE's) job is relevance, not your competitors ads or diplays... this is irrelevant to my search term, and that (your example) IS trademark infringement IMO. (If you used my trademarked name to come up in this example's results)

<added> grammatical</added>

This post has been edited by Hyperformance: Jan 21 2005, 04:00 PM

[Shane]

But I consider them completely relevant (and evidently Cline does too). I can't think of any brand offhand that I am so blindly brand loyal about that I wouldn't welcome relevant competitive ads.

The evidence is clear that users searching for brand names click on competitor's ads quite a bit of the time. (We see CTR's greater than 15% in some cases.) So not allowing us to advertise on those words would be restricting their choice.

Everyone at my company (including me) was all very much up in arms about this when it first broke last year, but we realized after awhile that the the positives far outweigh the negatives. And I think that's what sold us. I don't think Google's position is 100% correct, but it's far better than the alternative (them having to defend thousands of "american blind" lawsuits, us not being able to bid on generic terms etc.).

[jbelle]

This discussion made me think of the Burger King advertisement that was the first to mention a competitors name (in this case McDonalds). (Sarah Michelle Gellar of Buffy fame started in the ad.) Now it's outrageously common and we don't think much of it: how often are they playing those competing Bud Light/Miller Light advertisements? I don't even know whose are whose.

[cline]

Why is that Cline?  You searched for Nabisco™?  Now the engine results are NOT relevant to your search for Nabisco™?

Their (SE's) job is relevance, not your competitors ads or diplays... this is irrelevant to my search term, and that (your example) IS trademark infringement IMO. (If you used my trademarked name to come up in this examples results)

I'm not talking about search engine results. I'm talking about advertising.

Besides, IMHO these results *are* relevant. And in the Adwords system there is clear behavioral proof of their relevancy because people click on these ads. Ads that don't get clicked on get disabled quickly.

The search engines have more than one job. One is to deliver relevant search results. Another is to generate income so they can pay for the costs of delivering relevant search results.

Having ads that trigger on trademarks is *not* trademark infringement. Trademark infringement is about causing consumers to perceive your offer as coming from someone else. It's about things like making shoes in your own factory, putting Nike labels on them, and selling them as Nikes. It's not about things such as running a shoe store and telling customers who are shopping for Nikes that you have a great deal on Reeboks today.