Geico Sues Google & Overture, Trademark infringement on PPC buys Options

[cline]

See article.

Auto insurance company Geico has sued Google and Overture Services for allegedly violating its trademarks in search-related advertisements.

I hope Google and Overture are successful at beating back this anti-consumerist lawsuit.

[rohgan03]

Google may be standing on firmer legal ground, because it is difficult to establish Web users' intent when they type in a search term. For example, typing in the term "Apple" could signal a Web surfer's interest in the fruit just as well as the trademark name of Apple Computer. That argument counters trademark holders' claims that keyword search terms can divert customers from their business, he said.

[Deverill]

Isn't that like suing the phone company because I picked up the phone and started cold-calling clients passing myself off as you? Sure, sue the socks off of me but it's not the phone company's problem!

[Jill]

"This practice deliberately misleads consumers and allows Geico's competitors and these defendants to illegally exploit for their own commercial purposes Geico's investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in its brand," company spokeswoman Janice Minshall wrote in an e-mail.

You go Geico!

Hope they kick Google and Overture's trademark stealing butts!

They have no right to sell people's trademarks to the highest bigger. I'm so glad a large organization as Geico has decided to challenge Google's practice.

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

[Haystack]

I sat in on seminar about trademark infringement at the SES in NYC where the lawyer from American Blind (similar case to this) explained that Google is trafficking in his client's trademark. Google makes money off the ads, and in some cases will actually suggest or serve your ads on the trademarks of other companies if their algorithm decides the terms are relevant for a broad match.

Traditionally, businesses have gone after the other advertisers rather than the intermediaries, so this lawsuit is a bit unprecedented.

[Bernard]

I predicted this would happen (not specifically Geico) back on April 27th.

[Jill]

Yes, Bernard, we also discussed it here way back on April 27th.

Google in AdWords Strife.

Jill

[Jbrookins]

I'm not sure quite where I stand here...My problem is attempting to do the same thing in any other media format is perfectly legal. I can talk all day about why I think my service is better than Geico's, but with the internet, companies have gotten the power to gag anyone attempting to do comparisons. If geico thinks we have a problem, they sue me.

I don't think that either extreme is necessarily appropriate, but it shouldn't continue as it has to maintain a free market. Trademarks are impossible to police as EVERYTHING is trademarked in various contexts and the SE's simply do not have the ability to police it properly.

Personally, most I've seen of it is large corporations using it to drown any chance of competition by their smaller competitors, or in many cases, their resellers.

And Haystack: the "google makes money" argument is tenuous at best. After all, what advertising medium is free? You pay the stations for TV ads, newspapers for paper ads, etc etc...Fair use allows me to compare or specifically target placement there without those mediums being liable, so why not here?

[Scottie]

I've seen that presentaton twice, and I disagree with the American Blind guy. Sorry you picked 2 generic terms for your company, but you did.

I would like to see a hybrid fair-use policy- I don't think a company should be forced to keep bidding up on it's own name, but I don't think all other uses should be squashed. There are plenty of legitimate comparisons, accessories, second-market and after-market industries associated with many trademarked names that don't deserve to be shut out.

[Jbrookins]

I've started thinking that giving companies the #1 spot on their SPECIFIC, unique trademark at the minimum bid. This allows competitors and resellers the same latitude they would have in other media venues without costing the trademark holder undue amounts of money to utilize their own trademark.

However, companies that have chosen vague or common term trademarks are on their own. They can compete with the rest of the world as user intent isn't clear. If they feel theres a real trademark infringement going on, it's between them and the offending party.

[LeftoverJoe]

I've started thinking that giving companies the #1 spot on their SPECIFIC, unique trademark at the minimum bid. This allows competitors and resellers the same latitude they would have in other media venues without costing the trademark holder undue amounts of money to utilize their own trademark.

I agree with JBrookins here in that it wouldn't be fair to make a company pay through the teeth for their own trademark in ad space. It's similar to the domain name issues that we saw a lot of years ago where people were buying up trademark name domains and then selling them back at unreasonable prices to the trademark holders.

I also agree that vague names are pretty much fair game. In general I think that companies will have to look at the internet medium differently than traditional media when they consider trademark policy. Certain trademarks just become part of the vernacular, like xerox or kleenex. I don't think that it's going to be easy for Google or Overture to police their results 100% efficiently to determine proper use of these terms, etc.

[cline]

It amazes me the ridiculous attitudes some people have about trademarks. Last week one of my clients got an email from a competitor complaining about our Adwords targeting on his "trademark". His "trademark" is of the form: "Parts for Fords" -- and the competitor isn't Ford! (I'm just using Ford as an example. The situation is in another industry). He's using somebody else's trademark in his own business name and he had the audacity to tell my client to stop advertising on the term "parts for Fords" for my client's offer for parts for Fords.

This supposed trademark infringement is bogus. It's no different than a consumer going into a store and asking for brand X and the clerk suggesting that the consumer also consider brand Y.

[Jill]

I agree that "parts for Fords" is nobody's trademark (except maybe Ford's), and neither is "High Rankings" a trademark that I could defend.

However, my old site, RankWrite, that was/is a trademark that can be defended, so is my name, as it is my brand.

So is something like iProspect. If I had an AdWords that came up for their name, it might certainly confuse people into thinking that I was somehow associated with that company, and it would possibly be construed as trademark infringement. IMO, iProspect would have every right to ask me and Google to decease and desist from using their name as a trigger for my ad for competing services. And if I didn't stop, or Google didn't make me stop, I would expect that they would sue me.

Jill

[LeftoverJoe]

We have a law firm client and they have sites that provide information and direction for people that have problems/issues with certain prescription drugs. Of course, they also offer the option of litigation review with their firm and the possibility of a civil suit if the visitor wants to pursue that action.

Google has refused our keywords including the prescription drug name itself. This makes it difficult to accurately portray the site through the allowable keywords. Even though they aren't offering competition to their product, they are providing an avenue for a possible lawsuit against the manufacturer. But this is just part of the process of checks and balances I think.

This leads me to conclude that a blanket denial of trademark usage is unfair. That's my story and I'm stickin to it! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[SearchRank]

I am for Geico. that is a pretty unique name unlike something like "American Blinds" and if competitors are using it to trigger ads then Geico has every right to ask that Google and Overture stop allowing those ads to occur and if not, then pay up in court.

SearchRank is trademarked and if I see someone using that word all together (not search rank) then I am going to ask any PPC to cease and desist. In fact I read a discussion on a forum a while back where someone was suggesting that Yahoo call their PageRank type of system "SearchRank" instead of "WebRank." I don't think so.

So go Geico. Besides, I love their commercials! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)