Does Geico Own 'Geico' Or Does Google? [Geico sues: stop other insurance ads when googling 'Geico']

Forbes ^ | Dec 13, 2004 | Dan Ackman

[Mike Fieschko]

NEW YORK - Geico doesn't mind you Googling Geico, but when you do, it wants Google to tell you about Geico, not Allstate or AIG.

This is the crux of a lawsuit going to trial today in Virginia pitting the car insurer, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway (nyse: BRKa - news - people ), against the search engine that says it wants to organize the world's information, information on car insurance included.

Geico sued Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people) in May claiming trademark infringement. The insurer says Google links ads from Geico's rivals to searches for "Geico" itself. This sending of Geico hunters to destinations apart from Geico hurts Geico, Geico says. But Google says what it does is perfectly legal, a form of "fair use" that does not violate Geico's intellectual property. It says that Geico may own Geico, but the word "Geico" is up for grabs.

This form of fair use is big business for Google. It makes the bulk of its revenue, which was $806 million in the third quarter, from selling ads that are targeted to search results. Thus, a search for "Geico" leads to Geico on the left side of the screen, but on the right side, there are "sponsored links" to AIGauto.com, onlinemarts.com and cheapercarinsurance.com. Google went public in August, raising $1.67 billion and its stock has soared since then.

The suit raises novel legal claims. But in heading for trial, Geico has already won a partial victory as Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia this August refused to throw it out on legal grounds. The suit was originally against Overture as well. But Overture settled earlier this month, leaving the more alliterative battle, Geico v. Google, the only case on trial.

Intellectual property law experts are skeptical about Geico's chances. "The case law in this area is very primitive and unformed," says Susan Crawford, who teaches cyberspace law at Cardozo Law School. But Google, she adds, has "very strong arguments" as there is simply no confusion created that would undermine Geico's mark.

Bill Patry, a partner in Thelen Ried & Priest and an author of a leading treatise on copyright law, agrees, pointing out that a trademark owner does not own the name, but the name in association with a product. Geico's position, he says, "sounds like a very monopolistic, expansive use of trademark." He adds, "It sounds like a very strange suit to me"

Google does the same thing to everybody--almost. A search for "Nike" brings up sites that sell Nike (nyse: NKE - news - people) products, but none that sell Reeboks (presumably because Nike sellers were the ones to buy the links. A search for "Microsoft" leads to many Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people) sites, but also to companies offering to "fix Microsoft errors," which the colossus of Redmond may or may not appreciate. A search for "Dell" will get you to Dell.com, both on the left and on the right, as Dell (nasdaq: DELL - news - people ) has, it seems, purchased sponsored links to itself. That search leads not to Gateway. A search for Forbes gets you Forbes, and also a diamond merchant that Forbes said nice things about.

On the other hand, a Google search for Google leads the searcher to Google sites, with no sponsored links at all. If you use Google to search for Google rival Yahoo! (nasdaq: YHOO - news - people ), all you get is Yahoo!. This leads to the question, if sponsored links are such a great idea, why doesn't Google or Yahoo! buy any for themselves?

[Mike Fieschko]

Found through ISN'T WARREN BUFFETT A WONDERFUL PERSON? on Donald Luskin's site Chronicle of the Conspiracy [to keep you poor and stupid].

[KarlInOhio]

Sometimes I look in a magazine for information on Charles Schwab and see ads for ETrade. The horror, the horror!

[newgeezer]

This should be interesting. At this point, I think Geico should win, easily.

[tallhappy]

Google's right. Geico's wrong.

Would Geico rather not be able to be googled at all?

[MineralMan]

Stupid. A search for "Geico" brings up Geico Insurance's web site as the first hit. This is just a stupid suit, brought by a company that want's to stop Google from selling ads linked to keywords. It won't work, especially since Geico's web site is the first hit on the list.

[SoDak]

If somehow Geico could win this suit, if I were google, I'd then leave "geico" out of the database, and have searches come up empty.

[San Jacinto]

It is interesting. My money would be on google to win.

[mgist]

This sounds like a solid antitrust case to me.

[Terabitten]

If somehow Geico could win this suit, if I were google, I'd then leave "geico" out of the database, and have searches come up empty.

Yep. Geico's opening up a can of whoop*ss here.

Also, customer perception is everything. Currently, Geico is seen as a customer-friendly corporation... if they're suddenly seen as greedy, their business will drop off dramatically.

[BJungNan]

That is a copyright issue dealing with meta tags, keywords and website descriptions using Gieco's name. It has nothing to do with Google. Google can not be the meta tag police.

[Beckwith]

If I was CEO of Google, I would block Geico.

[LRS]

What happens if you Google gecko?

[SoDak]

If google doesn't win, it basically destroys googles business model.

[Mike Fieschko]

That is a copyright issue dealing with meta tags, keywords and website descriptions using Gieco's name. It has nothing to do with Google. Google can not be the meta tag police.

I don't understand what meta tags, etc., have to do with this. Do the meta tags, etc., determine when someone's ad runs?

I don't think a business pays Google to get into their searches, so wouldn't this be similar to the Yellow Pages?

No one pays for a one line, standard font line listing in the Yellow Pages. A business just tells the phone company what line of work they do. I suppose a business could tell the phone company not to list them in the Yellow Pages. (Going on experience from years ago here.)

Businesses do pay for bold or red font, or display ads. So, Geico gets a free listing in the insurance section of the Yellow Pages, and can't stop the phone company from printing Allstate's display ads.

[Salgak]

You get: THIS

Next question ???

[sharktrager]

Actually, this is based on ads Google sells that allow competitor ads to show up if you google Geico. It's not about meta tags.

[LRS]

Well, you might have to go ahead a couple of pages:

http://www.geico.com/blog/

[E. Pluribus Unum]

...I think Geico should win, easily.

Any logical basis for what you "think," or is it really just what you "feel?"

[UseYourHead]

I don't see why you think Geico will win easily. I watch television by way of Dishnetwork and I see DirecTv ads all the time. If Dish had their way I'm sure I would never see a DirecTv ad.