Google revises AdWords trademark policy

Google has revised its policy on trademarks appearing in keyword ads, allowing brand names to show up in AdWords copy.

Google will begin accepting new ads that contain trademark terms on Friday although the ads will not surface online until June 11. Dan Friedman, a member of the Inside AdWords crew, announced the shift Thursday in a company blog:

In an effort to improve ad quality and user experience, we are adjusting our trademark policy in the U.S. to allow some ads to use trademarks in the ad text. This change will bring Google's policy on trademark use in ad text more in line with the industry standard. Under certain criteria, you can use trademark terms in your ad text in the U.S. even if you don't own that trademark or have explicit approval from the trademark owner to use it. This change will help you to create more narrowly targeted ad text that highlights your specific inventory.

For example, under our old policy, a site that sells several brands of athletic shoes may not have been able to highlight the actual brands that they sell in their ad text. However, under our new policy, that advertiser can create specific ads for each of the brands that they sell. We believe that this change will help both our users and advertisers by reducing the number of overly generic ads that appear across our networks in the U.S.

The move comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed against Google by Firepond, which makes sales management software, over whether the search giant should be allowed to sell keywords bearing a company's trademark to its competitors. A similar suit involving PC support company Rescuecom was brought back to life in April by an appeals court after initially being dismissed in 2006.

Rescuecom and Firepond argue that their respective keywords are an extension of the trademark they have acquired on their brands and that Google should not be encouraging competitors to violate the trademark by using it to promote their own products.

AdWords allows anyone to bid on a given keyword and win placement on the top or right side of a search results page based on a combination of factors such as the maximum bid for that keyword as well as the quality of the ad.

[smallbizowner]

This is crazy. I have worked for a couple of the largest internet companies, and I've started my own company. Competitors frequentyly buy trademark names and then post false statements about their competitors. This is excrutiatingly present in the small business world where one or two bad apples are unethical. Google refuses to police false ads and allowing trademark terms give false ads more credence.

Google owns 80% of the market. Thus, they are defining "the industry standard" rather than "lining up with the industry standard." I'd like an aggressive reporter to start calling them out on that line. Needless to say, I'm not Google's biggest fan when it comes to their business practices, but they have a monopoly in the space so I have no choice but to play by their rules.

[aMUSICsite]

But if I want to advertise that my product is available on Amazon or iTunes or if I want to advertise that my shop stocks Nike or Coke, then why shouldn't I be able to do this on Google's platform?

I could take out an advert in the local/national media and do it. It should be the job of the advertising watchdog/agency/standards (or whatever government body is in charge of stopping false advertising) to stop any illegal/misleading adverts.

Anyone know how this affects countries outside the US?

[Renegade Knight]

in order for trademarks to have any value. They have to be open for fair use. If we can't talk Nike. Nike as a trademark is meaningless. It's not Google typing in the search term.

[knowles2]

Well we in UK go the Advertising standards authority.
And they are quite ruthless organisation that not afraid to slap people down for post force advertisments.
Whether these remit covers the internet I an not sure.

[almostrice]

The problem is not selling Coke and advertising it. The problem is selling Pepsi and using the Coke name to drive customers to your site. See the difference?

[Bob Kakis]

This is ridiculous! I had spent $5,000 in legal fees to get Google to stop allowing my trademark to be used as an Ad Word. Now, it was all for nothing.

I wish Google would die. Better yet, I am going to start calling my company Google - See how they like it!

[Bob Kakis]

So what about brands like Virgin - They have a full spectrum of wares and services - How will Google police that? Trademarks can encompass many, many products and services, not just pop or a shoe!

[winstein]

I have mixed feeling about this. I don't mind if Pepsi is advertising next to Coke, a little competition is good for consumers. The question is who should watch the online advertisers? Too many of them seem to be operating under the "hit and run" model. Just look at all the companies that operates in China, buys AdWords in the US, blatantly advertise fake hand bags and claims to ships world wide.

[Pete Bardo]

As usual, it seems most of the commenters here haven't actually read the Google policy. The policy would reject an ad that uses a trademark for a product or service the company does not provide. That doesn't mean a similar service, it means the service sold must be provided by the trademark owner.

Still, for enforcement of trademark infringement, it is apparently up to the trademark owner to file a complaint before Google will take action.

[almostrice]

We are reading the article and if Google would enforce that so called policy we would not have the lawsuits.