Class Action Suit Filed Against Google

[-REECE-]

I think every domainer ought to read this article from TheDomainss.com : Class Action Suit Filed Against Google For Selling Trademarked Keywords | The Domains

Very scary to imagine what could happen...

 

[gazzip]

wow, that is really scary, although somebody was bound to try that angle sooner or later, google must be taking it very seriously cos there's no ads showing at all if you search for firepond :o

...has the **** just hit the fan big time ???



.

 

[JobsEmployment]

Greed and Stupidity

I think every domainer ought to read this article from TheDomainss.com : Class Action Suit Filed Against Google For Selling Trademarked Keywords | The Domains

Very scary to imagine what could happen...

You've got to nuts to sue google unless you've got a good case, a taste for free advertising or are just plain stupid.

"allowing rivals to buy keywords " - What's wrong with that. Stupid baseless lawsuit. It does not sound legit to me.

_\|/_

 

[NameCharger]

Last night I set out to eat fish tacos but instead ate at a burger joint because it was closer to my house -- does this mean the taco place is entitled to money too?

 

[Michelle]

I dont think domainers are liked very much and any $ avenue is being taken away bit by bit

 

[duceman]

I thought google stopped doing this years ago. I'll have to search for it but I'm almost positive that G had been sued for the same reason.

I've been buying and applying for TM's for several domains related to my main business to cut down on the Adwords competition. Unfortunately the USTPO is fidgety on Geo+industry marks.

 

[DJ-Sound]

It's about time Google starts utilizing the online trademark database to prevent people bidding on Tm's for keywords.

 

[labrocca]

imho the suit is justified. Google has a real problem with all the money they are making off other peoples work and marks.

In the end I think Google might have to deploy a better method of removing advertisers that infringe on marks. If you have mark you should be able to quickly contact them to have the ad campaign removed. If they aren't taking the precautions and neccessary steps of preventing abuse then the lawsuits will name them for being negligent and enabling.

 

[NameCharger]

I don't see infringement in using a TM word to trigger other ads - as long as you're not misrepresenting yourself as the TM holder.

Google has a policy in place to prevent the latter, TM holders can specify which websites can use their TMs in ad copy:
AdWords Trademark Authorization Process

Would you call Foot Locker and tell them you are looking for Nike shoes and expect them to pull every other brand off the shelf prior to your arrival?

 

[CrazyTech]

Unfortunately this is a trend happening to the English language as a whole. It's going to get to the point where you can't literally say anything or do anything (or in this case search anything) that won't infringe upon someone's TM:

The Privatization of the English Language | The Best Article Every day

 

[labrocca]

Would you call Foot Locker and tell them you are looking for Nike shoes and expect them to pull every other brand off the shelf prior to your arrival?

The shoe store is a selling agent of Nike and under fair-use can use the mark.

A better example would be Burger King buying the term McDonalds from Google to obtain any traffic it can.

I hope you see the difference.

 

[rowan]

The trouble is that ordinary dictionary words can be trademarked - think of 'caution' and 'sweet pea' as typical examples, both of which are trademarked for use on clothing and personal goods, and both companies who have the trademarks will not hesitate to sue instead of first sending a C&D if you so much as mention the word about a clothing product or print it on a t-shirt. There are thousands of examples, even colors can be trademarked.

Rowan

 

[Dave_Z]

The trouble is that ordinary dictionary words can be trademarked

Well, practically because little to no one objected. Then again, some of those ordinary dictionary words became their respective commercial successes anyway.

 

[MeanerDomainer]

More restrictions -> less ads.
Less ads -> less revenue for domainers.
Domainers should probably be more concerned about this than any other group.

I can understand why Dell would be concerned when someone types Dell laptop into Google and sees Lenovo and HP ads because Dell will have to spend money to prevent that, if that is what they want to do, but the point made earlier was a good one:

If I walk into Best Buy to look at a Dell laptop and announce at the door "Dude, I'm getting a Dell!" or more accurately "Dude, I'm here to look at a Dell", are Best Buy employees required to run and cover up the Lenovo endcap display and the HP sale laptops? And is it "unfair" to Dell if Best Buy employees mention or even push the Lenovo laptops and the HP sale after I declared my intention to look at a Dell?

 

[labrocca]

If I walk into Best Buy to look at a Dell laptop and announce at the door "Dude, I'm getting a Dell!" or more accurately "Dude, I'm here to look at a Dell", are Best Buy employees required to run and cover up the Lenovo endcap display and the HP sale laptops? And is it "unfair" to Dell if Best Buy employees mention or even push the Lenovo laptops and the HP sale after I declared my intention to look at a Dell?

Bad analogy. Since when is the customer the commercial entity advertising? Now let's say Michael Dell himself goes into Best Buy and whenever someone schmoozes over to look at the HP's he tells them "Dell is better and I can give you a better price". That's more like what's happening here. Consider Google the security guard for the building that's taking a door fee everytime Michael Dell walks in. Google knows what's going on and has to take step to prevent abuse of this sort.

 

[MeanerDomainer]

Bad analogy. Since when is the customer the commercial entity advertising? Now let's say Michael Dell himself goes into Best Buy and whenever someone schmoozes over to look at the HP's he tells them "Dell is better and I can give you a better price". That's more like what's happening here. Consider Google the security guard for the building that's taking a door fee everytime Michael Dell walks in. Google knows what's going on and has to take step to prevent abuse of this sort.

You know the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for"...


Who has decided that it's "abuse"? Maybe it's actually called "capitalism".
1) Google does not force ANYONE to click on the ads.
2) Google does not force ANYONE to base their buying decision on the ads.
3) Google does not forbid Dell from buying ads.
4) Google also presents organic results, which Google says cannot be bought and are not influenced by how large your advertising budget with Google is.

 

[-REECE-]

A huge percentage of the general public doesn't even realize that people are paying to have their ads on the right side of Google search results -- I'd imagine far less would be clicking if they realized they were paid rather than top results. If your competitor starts squatting your keywords, you either do the same back or your sales go down -- simple economics right there.

You know the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for"...


Who has decided that it's "abuse"? Maybe it's actually called "capitalism".
1) Google does not force ANYONE to click on the ads.
2) Google does not force ANYONE to base their buying decision on the ads.
3) Google does not forbid Dell from buying ads.
4) Google also presents organic results, which Google says cannot be bought and are not influenced by how large your advertising budget with Google is.

 

[MeanerDomainer]

A huge percentage of the general public doesn't even realize that people are paying to have their ads on the right side of Google search results -- I'd imagine far less would be clicking if they realized they were paid rather than top results. If your competitor starts squatting your keywords, you either do the same back or your sales go down -- simple economics right there.

So when Joe walks into sports authority with the intention of taking a look at a pair of New Balance shoes, is Nike guilty of "abuse" if they have paid sports authority to get an endcap display that catches Joe's eye before he even gets to the New Balance display? In this case also, Joe probably does not know that New Balance paid to get the endcap or special isle display and that they paid to have it located between the entrance and the New Balance display. Or is it just capitalistic free market competition - the very thing this country was built on and built by - because New Balance could have also bought the endcap just as well. (Assuming, of course, that they could have, which may or may not be true in the shoe example, but certainly is true with Google).

 

[TheDomains]

Second Class Action Suit Filed Against Google

A second class action suit was filed late last week against google:

Google Hit With SECOND Class Action Suit | The Domains

 

[labrocca]

Who has decided that it's "abuse"? Maybe it's actually called "capitalism".

That's why there is a suit to determine such through the courts system.

Places like Ebay do a fine job of managing to stay away from suits by removing quickly any auctions that violate it's TOS which have a lot of exclusions. Google on the other hand doesn't.

1) Google does not force ANYONE to click on the ads.
2) Google does not force ANYONE to base their buying decision on the ads.
3) Google does not forbid Dell from buying ads.

I don't see your point.

4) Google also presents organic results, which Google says cannot be bought and are not influenced by how large your advertising budget with Google is.

Yes and their index isn't a direct money maker based off trademarks. They use an algorithm that crawls the web to gain results. The same cannot be said about ads in Adwords. The suit will bring more info to light and I believe the end result will be that Google will change some policies and make it easier for TM holders to pull competitor ads using their TMs.

I want to give you another analogy here on what's going on. Imagine you are watching TV and you see an ad for a cheap home refinancing from Chase Mortgage. They flash a telephone number to call to get more info. You call and it turns out the number is for Joes Home Mortgages and it's not related at all to Chase. This is the exact same thing. The television networks would be held accountable I am sure for not properly viewing the ad before running it. Joes Home Mortgage would also be liable.

I don't see how that's debatable in that context.