Ya gonna hear from my lawyer!
Posted on 12/13/2004 1:58:58 PM PST by Mike Fieschko
GEICO can get on the right side with just a few $$$.
I just googled Geico and I don't see any ads for anyone else.
My money would be on the lawyers.
I manage online bidding for a company...we advertise on many search engines.
We advertise on Google using keywords. Bidding is competitive, but when I google "Geico", their site comes up first and they are not bidding for that position on the main page.
Google is doing them a favor...unlike Yahoo, Altavista, and a host of other search engines, the mainpage sites listed are self edited by Google and you can not "pay" for that position.
You can "pay" to position yourself in the top of the page ads, or side of the page ads.
Geico should thank Google, not sue them. Google could demote them to 3rd or 4th page in their "free" listings if they wanted to.
"Geico should thank Google, not sue them. Google could demote them to 3rd or 4th page in their "free" listings if they wanted to"
This made me think of how much influence Google has on other's research...
Ya gonna hear from my lawyer!
The same with Dish ads that appear on cable TV. The cable companies do what they can to block them but hey it's the nature of advertising.
Yeah! Geico could buy the ad space.
wrong company - I think this claim is made by Progressive
I think that's Progressive.
LOL!
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A federal judge heard arguments Monday in a trademark dispute that could threaten millions in advertising revenue for search engine Google Inc
Attorneys for auto insurance giant Geico told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema that Google should not be allowed to sell ads to rival insurance companies that are triggered whenever Geico's name is typed into the Google search box.
Geico claims that Google's AdWords program, which displays the rival ads under a "Sponsored Links" heading next to a user's search results, causes confusion for consumers and illegally exploits Geico's investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in its brand.
"When a consumers enters 'Geico' ... and goes to the sponsored link believing there's a connection, that is where the confusion arises," said Geico attorney Charles Ossola.
But Google attorney Michael Page said the ad policy is no different than a supermarket giving out coupons for one product in the checkout line when a customer buys the same product from a different company.
"There is nothing wrong with that under the trademark laws," Page said.
Geico filed the lawsuit against Google in May, seeking $8.65 million in lost profits and a court order preventing Google from using its name in the advertising program.
Under the program, for example, a competing insurance company could bid to have its ad appear every time Google users search for the word "Geico." When a user clicks on an ad, the advertiser pays Google a predetermined fee.
Google is facing similar lawsuits from other companies, including American Blind and Wallpaper Factory Inc. and AXA, the world's No. 3 insurer. Last year, Google asked a court to rule on whether its pay-for-placement ad policy is legal.
John McCutcheon, Geico's assistant vice president of marketing, testified Monday that most consumers visit just one Web site when shopping for auto insurance. If a consumer trying to find Geico is unknowingly steered to a competitor's site, "We've lost one opportunity."
The Geico lawsuit, filed in May, came just weeks after Google said it hoped to raise $2.7 billion with an initial public stock offering. The vast majority of Google's ad revenue comes from search-related advertising. In federal filings, the company said it would face financial risks if it was forced to limit sales of keyword ads to generic words.
Geico's lawsuit had also named Web site company Overture Services, a Yahoo! subsidiary, but the two companies reached an undisclosed settlement in November, after Brinkema denied a motion to dismiss the trademark claims.
The bench trial is expected to last three days, after which Brinkema could issue a decision or take the matter under advisement.
Yes. No. Now, go piss up a rope.
You're the expert at that.
Although I think it should win easily, it does not necessarily follow that I believe it will. I don't. This is mostly uncharted territory. Granted, both sides have good points.
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.
The difference has to do with, as the title says, "Who owns 'Geico.'" It's explained pretty well in the first few paragraphs of the article. Google is profiting from its direct use of the trademark "Geico" by selling and serving the ads of Geico's competitors. The combination of those three points make this very different from your analogy.
Finally, as was implied by my previous post, I have an open mind about it. I'd welcome the chance to be on the jury.
I think that Google would be compromising their 'neutral' search results and threaten the goodwill they have built up if they were to be so capricious as block GEICO from a search request...
Good thing Google won, huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.