RSS
Twitter
Now Google Getting Sued For Blocking Trademarked Terms
from the getting-ridiculous dept
A few months back, France fined Google for selling ads based on trademarked terms. I was surprised, because in my own experiments with Google ads, I've had a few ads that were rejected because they (according to Google) contained trademarked terms. Personally, I don't see how buying a keyword is, in any way, a violation of trademark. The point of a trademark is to protect the company from having someone else appear to be you. You can't sell Bob's Cola and put a Coca-Cola label on it. However, if someone is looking for Coca-Cola, there's nothing wrong with suggesting they might also want to look at Bob's Cola, as well. Anyway, now it looks like Google may get hit from the other side as well. They've been fined for selling ads based on trademarks, and now, apparently, they're going to get sued for blocking ads based on trademark complaints. The pending lawsuit apparently says that Google is banning ads on terms that aren't trademarked as soon as anyone complains. That is, Google doesn't check to see if there's an actual trademark - they just ban the ad as soon as there's a complaint. The group that's going to sue says they've brought together over 3,000 complaining advertisers who have had ads blocked. As mentioned, I've had my ads blocked too, but this seems like a ridiculous lawsuit. Where in the law does it say that Google has to sell you ads for whatever you want? They have the right to reject ads for whatever reason they want. It is their system, after all. If people believe they're blocking ads unfairly, then isn't that an opening for competitors to better serve advertisers by offering them something that Google doesn't?
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Is it in their EULA?
Do they have a disclaimer that says they reserve the right to refuse any business offer?
Just curious because I still see restaurants, theaters, etc. with disclaimers posted that they (the management) reserve the right to not serve anyone at their discretion. I always thought that was kind of a given, so why post it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Perhaps not.
They have the right to reject ads for whatever reason they want. It is their system, after all
Not if they have a 'natural monopoly'. The case in the early days of the railroad (don't remember the case name) but it was about how a railroad owned the 'best' place to cross a river and had bouhgt up land at other 'good' locations, thus forcing other railroads to undergo big expenses to cross said river. The result was if you held a natural monopoly that excludes others, you must allow access. But I'm sure someone else will post the exact details.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Perhaps not.
Not if they have a 'natural monopoly'.
True, although access is a very nuanced area of law. I don't think any sane person could argue that Google is a monopoly with a straight face, though. They have literaly hundreds of competitors, at least one of them a massive convicted monopolist itself. And switching costs are so cheap... Google is actually in a fairly precarious position.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Perhaps not.
I don't think any sane person could argue that Google is a monopoly with a straight face, though.
Sure. A cheesy clip show of TV programs where someone says "did you google that" "Google him yet?" or any of the other useage of Google as a verb.
An uphill climb, but a jury might go for the 'Google is a monopoly' idea, depending on how often they use it themselves.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Perhaps not.
Would Tivo be a monopoly then?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Perhaps not.
Would Tivo be a monopoly then?
Yes. And if they were blocking the recording or playback of content....they could get sued.
The biggest 'bitch' about TIVO is consumers skip ads, and so far the advertisers havn't figured out HOW to file a suit that has a chance of sticking.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Perhaps not.
Yes. And if they were blocking the recording or playback of content....they could get sued.
So just because a company has a name monopoly, they can be sued like they have a monopoly? Last I checked, TiVo wasn't even the biggest DVR company out there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Perhaps not.
Last I checked, TiVo wasn't even the biggest DVR company out there.
Proof please. Show the TIVO %age of market by the numbers of DVR's deployed.
According to the data I've seen, TIVO has the majority of the market. Thus far TIVO hasn't been 'made into a verb' like Google, I have yet to hear of TV shows saying 'Did you TIVO CSI?'.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Perhaps not.
TiVo doesn't have the largest %. That honor goes to the PVR offered by EchoStar, which is still ahead of TiVo in the market place.
http://www.connectedhomemag.com/HomeTheater/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=40900
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
"They have the right to reject ads for whatever reason they want."
I don't think so, at least not in the U.S. For excample, that would include the race and gender of the advertiser as reasons.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
They can reject an ad for any legal reason. Suspicion of trademark infringment is or should be a legal reason. Sounds like an anbulance chasing lawyer just looking for his 30% of a settlement. Now that google is big and people assume they have money they will a target in our over litigous society.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Oh well...
So much for trying to take the safe path.. Gee can we get sued for breathing?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Oh well...
"So much for trying to take the safe path.. Gee can we get sued for breathing?"
If the breathing is "heavy", the answer is probably yes.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
GEICO v Google
Regarding the following quote:
"Personally, I don't see how buying a keyword is, in any way, a violation of trademark. The point of a trademark is to protect the company from having someone else appear to be you. You can't sell Bob's Cola and put a Coca-Cola label on it. However, if someone is looking for Coca-Cola, there's nothing wrong with suggesting they might also want to look at Bob's Cola, as well."
If you go to a restaurant and order a "Coke" and the watiress brings you a glass filled with Pepsi or some other cola without informing you at the time you placed your order that the restaurant does not have "Coke" but carries a different brand, then that restaurant has infringed on Coca Cola's trademark.
Why should Google be treated differently? If you "Google" "GEICO" and the results page is filled with links other than or in addition to GEICO's links because those links had "GEICO" embedded in their ads or pages, then GEICO's trademark has been infringed. The advertiser has used GEICO's name in order to drive the customer to that advertiser's site rather than GEICO's site.
It becomes a question of who has the responsibility for the content that appears on Google's results page; The advertiser or Google.
If you are a newspaper publisher and someone buys an ad or writes a letter to the editor that contains libelous material that you then publish, YOU, the publisher, are guilty of libel because you have control over what you publish.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment