Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   He's confused

   

   Bad Spelling Gooru, Apr 23rd, 2007 @ 1:02am

   
   

   They're advertising on the word 'blinds', the search [National Blinds] contains the word 'blinds' so their name appears. They're not advertising on the trademark 'National Blinds' so this is not an case-closed situation.
   
   That said:
   Trademarks are labels, they are associated with particular goods or services. You are restricted from using that trademark in connection with that good or service.
   IT DOES NOT REMOVE THE WORDS OR PHRASE FROM THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The advert is not the good or service. It is no different from telling a magazine to give me a good slot next to a 'Dell' advert. The position of the advert next to the Dell advert is not using the 'Dell trademark'.
   
   1. It is no different from buying ad space opposite a 'Pepsi' sponsored event. The Olympics gets special laws to prevent this, the fact they need special laws, tells you that the normal law defines buying adverts next to competitors products/goods/events/services ok.
   
   2. There are multiple uses for words:
   'Get your seeing eye dogs with National Delivery' on the words American Blinds for example, and I should be able to buy any other advert.
   
   3. There are multiple jurisdictions for words which can have different owners:
   'Compra American Blinds desde Todos-cosas-Americano'
   
   4. There's no deception, the ads are clearly labelled 'ads by Google'.
   
   5. Googles search algorithm is not a measure of 'how close to a trademark a site is' they are not obliged to even show 'AmericanBlinds.com' in the search results, and the courts have upheld that.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Google must win this case

   

   ReallyEvilCanine, Apr 23rd, 2007 @ 1:27am

   
   

   Their lawyers need to hammer one point over and over and over again until the judge and jury are moving their lips each time a Google lawyer says, "Trademarks exist not to protect owners' names and phrases but to protect the public from fraud. Trademarks are not copyrights."
   
   The fact that this suit wasn't summarily thrown out shows that there's already gross confusion about what trademark and copyright are. A stupid decision in this suit could set a disastrous precedent. If a trademark is seen as a form of copyright then any company could stifle any negative commentary by filing SLAPP suits claiming use violation.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Overcast, Apr 23rd, 2007 @ 6:21am

   
   

   The very worst thing that ever happened to the internet was the corporate and legal world discovering it.
   
   They can F up a wet dream.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   how is this still alive?

   

   John, Apr 23rd, 2007 @ 6:25am

   
   

   The fact that this case sticks around and wastes tax payers' money is a sure sign that our legal system is off track.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Nathania Johnson, Apr 23rd, 2007 @ 7:39am

   
   

   It doesn't appear that bidding for just "blinds" will get you on the page for "national blinds." Type in other searches using the word "blinds" and you'll see.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Broad Match?

   

   Al Scillitani, Apr 23rd, 2007 @ 7:39am

   
   

   "hey're advertising on the word 'blinds', the search [National Blinds] contains the word 'blinds' so their name appears. They're not advertising on the trademark 'National Blinds' so this is not an case-closed situation."
   
   I disagree. If you read the 3rd comment, it states "I also want to add, it does not appear they have the term "blinds" on broad match. If you search for "best blinds" or "just blinds" american blinds ads do not appear. "
   
   Yes they can have companies as negative match, but if they went that far and are suing, they better add it as exact match and that is it. I also highly doubt they are not bidding on "bali blinds" (#1 position) which is a trademarked name.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2007 @ 1:13pm

   
   

   A country name and generic product term should not be trademarkeable in the first place.
   
   Take 'Kenyan Drapes' or 'Australian Lamps', it's a location and a generic product name, how does this qualify for protection in the first place?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   They are too pirating the trademarks

   

   Youreallwrong, May 12th, 2007 @ 5:13pm

   
   

   The "adjacent" ad analogy is a red herring, or really just a dead fish. The advertisers are not placing their ads adjacent to National Blinds ads. They are pirating the trademark National Blinds to lead customers to their own sites. A better analogy would be if someone not associated with Best Buy built a store with a Best Buy sign on the store, and when customers got inside they found out it was not a Best Buy but they bought their electronics products there because they were there and the price was decent. True, they weren't deceived in the purchase the strict sents because it was revealed inside the store that it was not really a Best Buy. Still, the owner pirated the name Best Buy to get the customers into the store. This is precisely what the trademark advertisers are doing on Google. Google directly promotes and profits this way of doing business. Strict legal analysis aside, it's a morally bankrupt way of doing business both for Google and the advertisers. If it's not illegal, it should be.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   They are too pirating the trademarks

   

   Youreallwrong, May 12th, 2007 @ 5:13pm

   
   

   The "adjacent" ad analogy is a red herring, or really just a dead fish. The advertisers are not placing their ads adjacent to National Blinds ads. They are pirating the trademark National Blinds to lead customers to their own sites. A better analogy would be if someone not associated with Best Buy built a store with a Best Buy sign on the store, and when customers got inside they found out it was not a Best Buy but they bought their electronics products there because they were there and the price was decent. True, they weren't deceived in the purchase the strict sents because it was revealed inside the store that it was not really a Best Buy. Still, the owner pirated the name Best Buy to get the customers into the store. This is precisely what the trademark advertisers are doing on Google. Google directly promotes and profits this way of doing business. Strict legal analysis aside, it's a morally bankrupt way of doing business both for Google and the advertisers. If it's not illegal, it should be.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment