Comments on: Google's ad sales tested in court

A payday lending company in Ohio sues Google, saying it shouldn't sell rivals ads for searches on its trademarked name.

[zaznet]

Valid use of the trademark term.

If I use google to search for "Check N Go" services, then other companies would have an interest in offering me services that may compete directly with theirs. This is a not only a fair use of the trademark, but something that makes a whole lot of sense.

Databse sites make money indexing the textual content of music and movies. They also often allow you to cross reference to other artists or titles you might be interested in. This is all part of marketing.

If I search for "Playstation 3" then someone might want to sell me a PS3, or even show me a new XBox 360 (blasphemy). Both of these names are trade marked, but can be freely used to sell products and services to people interested in the product.

What companies like Check N Go need to do is work with Google on exclusive right to their trademark. As long as Google does not provide services under their trademark they should be free to sell targeted advertising utilizing any trademark.

It would be a bad thing to be unable to search for "metallica" because Google profits from my searching for the band. The targeted ads are only a start against search engines sending people to sites not directly controlled by the trademark owner. They will be able to further this move by showing Google still profits on the search even if they do not sell ads for the specific search word because they still display an ad when I use an unsold search term.

[alek_nedic]

against search engines

http://www.analogstereo.com/vacuum/miele_plus.htm

[mortis9]

Suggestion:

This practice should be allowed under fair use, so long as the rightful owner is distinguished. For instance: If i query "Playstation 3", then the first link should be to Sony's PS3 site, after that, it's fair game. If i query "Metallica" then the first link should be to the official band page (through the record company), after that everything's fair game. This would eleviate any customer confusion - they could no longer argue that in court, plus Google would still win. Everyone's happy. The copyright holder is distinguished first and others can still buy related ads.

[UnhappyConsumer]

Seems a bit unfair that one <a href="http://www.actionpaydayloans.com">Payday Loan</a> company is allowed to wrap up the market with a simple search term. Next thing you know, searching for software will be a problem as well. You would think that there would be more care and attention paid to the people who are actually needing the loans, and less to the companies that are only trying to line their own pockets.