Posted on 12/15/2004 2:55:11 PM PST by TChris
update Google scored a big legal win Wednesday when a federal judge ruled that its use of trademarks in keyword advertising is legal.
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Google's motion to dismiss a trademark-infringement complaint brought by Geico. The insurance company had charged Google with violating its trademarks by using the word "Geico" to trigger rival ads in sponsored search results. Geico claimed the practice diluted its trademarks and caused consumer confusion.
The judge said that "as a matter of law it is not trademark infringement to use trademarks as keywords to trigger advertising," said Michael Page, a partner at Keker & Van Nest, which represented Google.
Brinkema ended the trial Wednesday to issue a formal opinion on the matter. She also asked Google and Geico to settle a dispute over the use of Geico's marks in text of rival ads appearing on the search engine's site.
The ruling is a triumph for Google in that it derives as much as 95 percent of its advertising revenue from keyword-triggered ads, which appear next to Web search results. Trademarks play a central role to the sale of such ads because people often use Web search to find products and services with common, trademarked brand names such as Nike or Geico.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.com ...
Good for Google! Screw Geico.
Then they can offer Google more to *not* show the ads of their competitors.
How do you see this as fair Google is making money from Geico name is not compensating Geico and is injuring Geico business in the process
Should not Geico and other business be able to tell Google that there not allow to use there other business names to make a buck?. If Google want to sell ads for Auto Insurance no one stopping them, Google "Auto Insurance" and see what Google wants to push first...
But if you Google my business name that I own and spent good money to establish in the business world then you list my business and not my competition that your making money off of or you just don't list my business name at all
Geico spent the money to make there business name a synonym in Auto Insurance now Google come along and make a buck of that fact and hurts Geico busniess in the process?
Why not? The "white pages" belong to the Telephone Company (or other publishers), not to Geico. As it happens, ads do not normally appear in the white pages of a phone book. But the reason for that is partly tradition and mostly the nature of the publishing medium.
In other words, books and other printed materials have severe limitations. There's no easy way to know that a person is looking up "Geico" in the white pages, as opposed to several hundred other individuals or companies on a particular page, so it doesn't make economic sense to have insurance advertising in the white pages. You're forced to consult a separate yellow pages section to look up categories of businesses.
But that's not true when you type "Geico" into a search engine. Computers and the Internet's World Wide Web circumvent fixed paper-and-ink limitations, by accessing enormous relational databases and allowing the kinds of services and advertisements which Google offers. That's what makes the Internet so much more valuable than old-fashioned media.
This is a huge win, not only for Google but for all of us. In truth it is a big win for Geico, even if Geico's short-sighted management doesn't realize it. Geico is a low-cost insurance provider, so anything which increases transparency and consumer accessibility to competitive information should work to Geico's long-term advantage.
Fortunately, Geico's attempt to kill the golden goose of the Internet was swatted down by a smart judge.
Poor little Lizard :-(
Then look at your search results and not the ads.
Boy, Oh Boy!!! Yer at da topa yer game taday, ain'tcha?!?(mile wide grin!!!)
It's the equivalent of saying that if you bought an ad in a magazine, that the editors of the magazine couldn't put a competitor's ad on the same page.
Geico was just being greedy.
Why don't you try the search and see what happens. Nothing about the search results is affected, rather than commenting on something you don't appear to know anything about.
I have to say there are people who do not understand the trademark law involved. Geico spends about $200 million for brand recognition advertising. The trademark concept at issue in this case was that Google's use of Geico's trademark to "push" consumers to sponsored links with "Geico" in the title bar or text of the commercial causes confusion. By seeing the word Geico in the title or text of the ad, consumers may think that they are going to get a quote from Geico by clicking on that link.
You cannot get a Geico quote from any of the rate quoting websites. Only from Geico.com. Nowhere else. They do not share their underwriting matrix with anyone. So to mislead consumers by leading them to think that they can get a Geico quote is a misuse of Geico's trademark.
Let me give you an example. If you click on one of the sponsored links that have Geico in the title, and you think that you are getting a comparison between say Geico and Allstate, State Farm, AAA, Aig or any of a dozen others, and then you DON'T get a Geico quote, might you think that you don't qualify for Geico and therefore have to go elsewhere.
That is a lost opportunity for Geico to even "bid" on your business.
But Google, on the other hand, is paid handsomely for the use of Geico's trademark by the advertisers that want clicks produced by searching for Geico. Do THIS sound fair to you?
Not to me.
You pay for 411. You don't pay to use Google.
Actually, none of the sponsored links have the word "Geico" in their title or description. They just say "Get car insurance quotes here."
Personally, I think Google should have just said, "Okay, fine. We'll take the name 'Geico' out of our database entirely. Have a nice day." Geico would have been on their knees within twenty minutes begging for mercy.
Excellent point. I tend to agree with Geico.
I think Geico would have a point if the sponsored ads were listed as the top three or four links, but they're clearly off to one side, and plainly not part of the search results.
I just checked, and the word "Geico" does not appear in the text of any of the sponsored links.
The sponsored links are "activated" by the use of a trademarked word "Geico". Yes, they are off to the side, but do not take you to Geico's website. Also, when the lawsuit was filed, ALL the sponsored links had Geico in the title and the text. They made the advertisers take them down with the pending litigation. They will probably reappear now that the Judge was ruled in Google's favor.
Uncool doesn't compete in a fair business deal.
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.