Comments on: Google hit with new lawsuit over ad keywords

Firepond is reviving the legal tussle over whether Google should be allowed to sell ad keywords that are trademarks of a company to its competitors.

[monkeyfun14]

Eh I know a bit off topic but whats with the blurry screen shots on CNet lately?

[t8]

CNet doesn't want a lawsuit for clearly displaying an ad of the competitor of whom this story is about.
In other words the same reason for the lawsuit.
My guess anyway.

[Vegaman_Dan]

I think it's fine to have Google sell off the search results to the highst bidder. Granted, this is only on the advertising side, but as those sponsored links keep getting included in the actual search results by putting them at the top or alongside, people will associate them with the search itself.

If Coke wants to pay more than Pepsi for search results on Pepsi's own name, that's up to Google and Coke/Pepsi.

I wouldn't say it's fair, but I would say it's business.

[NewsReader_]

I could not disagree more. Google should not be allowed to sell keywords that are registered trademarks to third parties, period. Those trademaks are property that Google does not own.

Instead, only the trademark owner should be able to negotiate with Google over the cost of adding it as a keyword. Google can charge whatever it thinks is fair.

[paulej]

@NewReader, I think the problem with your argument is that Google is not selling anybody's trademarked names or words. They're only allowing those to be entered in search results. So? The owner of the trademark still owns the mark and I assure you that it's not tarnished in any way.

I think it is good for competition, as it allows me to find goods and services that are similar to the ones I am looking for. If I enter some company names or product names, perhaps it will help me find merchants that sell those products.

The whole idea is actually similar to an advertiser having an ad that compares its products against a competitors and names the competition by name. I see nothing wrong with that and never hear others complain.

I hope Google prevails on this one. I understand that Firepond might be upset that it has to deal with competitors, but that's just the way it is.

[badasscat]

paulej is right - this is really no different than going to the grocery store to buy a bottle of Coke and seeing bottles of Pepsi, RC and whatever else next to it on the shelf. Imagine if instead of that, Coke forbade any store from carrying its competitors if they carried Coke. That would be completely ridiculous.

[Renegade Knight]

@NewsReader

I started out by being wtih you but changed my mind when I thought about it. They aren't selling the word. They are selling ads keyed to the word. Nothing more. If I search for Coke and get a pepsi add, big deal so long as I also get the Coke search results that I'm after.

[Renegade Knight]

@NewsReader

I started out by being wtih you but changed my mind when I thought about it. They aren't selling the word. They are selling ads keyed to the word. Nothing more. If I search for Coke and get a pepsi add, big deal so long as I also get the Coke search results that I'm after.

@badasscat
Funny you mention that. Coke and Pepsi both make it worth a businesses while to NOT carry the competing product. It's annoying when you are stuck with the brand you dislike because they struck a deal that limited my choice to the yucky stuff.

[loose_screw]

Firepond will lose.

[Pete Bardo]

Google wins this one. Trademark infringement hinges on confusion or deception of the consumer through the use (display) of the trademark. Since the purchased keyword does not show in the ad anywhere, there is no such confusion or deception.

An interesting note here, searches for "Firepond" and "Firepond Configurator" on Google do not show any sponsored ads--at least not on May 13, 2009 at3:36 pm PDT.

[Neotrope]

I have written widely about this problem for a few years now, as my company has some better funded companies out-bidding us for keyword buys on our own trademarks registered in the U.S. and other countries. Where it becomes an issue is in places like social networks, which may have tiny ads, and then ONLY show the ad for a competitor in the context of original content from our company. So, it's like have a twitter page with a big adbox in the middle from our competitor -- it's really not cool. And the downside as a trademark holder is that we have to try to outbid our competitor for clicks in places where we don't need to necessarily show an ad simply to keep their ad from appearing, and which then takes away from our budget in attracting new business where we wish to be.

I don't want to seem like posting spam in any way, but I did write a very topical article about this issue quite some time ago which details my own experience with both Yahoo and Google in this particular issue .... if you're curious to read my experience in low-key trying to get Google to change this policy, and their response, you can read my article by searching (ahem) on Google for my 2007 article:

"Contextual Counter Branding: Your Pizza is My Pizza ..." by Christopher Simmons.

Personally, I think Google should change this policy when requested to do so. They recently asked me to fill out a survey on how they were doing with advertising - and this was my only real complaint.

Considering so many people on the net don't understand how search engines and results work, or how ads work... I know many people who have gone to a competitor, got bad info, then a week later called and said "Can I talk to blah.... he told me blah..." to which I reply "huh?" The customer says "I called the first item in Google when I typed in your company name ... isn't that you?" ... "um, no...."

Google does cause confusion in this regard and we have well documented it as a problem for us. So, for the newbies and trolls who don't actually OWN any registered trademarks .... or who manage complex offline and online ad programs, you really don't know what you're talking about in saying it's not a problem and "yay google." I love Google, too, except for this one thing.

Just my thoughts anyway. :-)

[t8]

Thanks for your interesting comment.

[Renegade Knight]

Newbie and Troll here. If I'm tracking right, you are complaining that you don't have enough money to buy an add on a search term? In the context of search it's not a trademark any more than than an entry in a phone directory where your competitor can buy a nice fat add and have it inserted just above your company name.

You own a trademark. Not a search term. If your angst gets in the way of my use of google and search terrms then I'm opposed and rightfully so. Even if you don't think I've got a pony in the race.