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 ...
That's true, however, there is no confusion created by the use of FedEx or UPS in the DHL ads. They are there only to promote competition. The ads may be misleading in that they show a gazillion DHL trucks and only one FedEx or UPS truck, but that is not illegal.
Which is obviously working, since people know enough to type "Geico" into a search engine.
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.
None of the ads have "Geico" in the title or text.
But Google, on the other hand, is paid handsomely for the use of Geico's trademark
Ownership of a "trademark" does not imply ownership of the "word". Otherwise you could not have a "McDonald's Lumber" or "Wendy's Boutique".
I have to say there are people who do not understand the trademark law involved.
That would be you ;^)
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.
See #36 above.
But Google, on the other hand, is paid handsomely for the use of Geico's trademark
Ownership of a "trademark" does not imply ownership of the "word". Otherwise you could not have a "McDonald's Lumber" or "Wendy's Boutique".
Right, however, if you tried to open another "McDonald's Hamburgers" or "Home Depot" you would get your b*tt sued off.
I have to say there are people who do not understand the trademark law involved.
See #36 above.
If Geico is so concerned about their competitors being listed on the same page, they can purchase all the ad-space from Google.
Capitalism wins this round.
A leftist ruling for a leftist website who didnt think it would happen ?
Google owns the database. They could elimiate Geico as a search result and be completely withing their rights.
Absolutely. Google is, in effect, providing Geico with free advertising simply by having them listed in their database.
That's how I see it, too.
If a company were paying for exclusive promotion, then what google is doing wouldn't be right.
The primary response to the trademark 'Geico' elecits a google response with #1 being the Geico commercial website. Other responses include news related to Geico.
The suit involves Google selling advertising space based on related industry companies/competitors.
IMHO opinion Geico has no standing in that they themselves use Meta-Tags to elevate their 'match' on search engines like Google and Yahoo. They are intentionally harnessing the technology provided for profit. They even advertise with Google.
To me, the most daming evidence regarding standing or perceived damage was that a Google search of 'Progressive Insurance' produced a company advertisement in the window in question (right pane) that provides insurance (in part) through: you guessed it - Geico. Geico is suing to stop their affiliates from advertising based on recognized industry names. Silly silly silly. (Someone please tell me why some intrepid reported from oh, say, the NYT didn't try this same little trick? Wouldn't 60 Minutes have loved to have that kind of 'gotcha' for an interview last Sunday...)
If Geico could show that one of their competitors was using ther Tm as a Tag they would have recourse against the competitpr, but a search through 9 pages of Geico results on Google revealed not a single competitor.
I think Google can argue reasonably that they are an information source that analyzes a request and provides available information based on trends, tendencies, and reasobale groupings. They are more than just a '411' operator (try calling 411 and asking for 'Pizza in my neighborhood' - it's a scary proposition at best). They are like the store clerk who, when asked for Tylenol, leads the customer to the analgesic aisle, but also shows them aspirin, ibuprofin, etc.
I believe you are correct.
I thought so.. f**k google.. there kerry supporters.. I like yahoo, and then when MSN search is released.. them....
...but only if you look up "insurance". If you look up "Geico", which would be in the white pages, you shouldn't be getting ads for their competitors. I have no problem with ads being tied to a generic term like "insurance", but it bugs me to get a competitor ad when I'm searching for a specific company. With the huge amount of $$ a business owner has to spend in advertising to get that level of name recognition, it's uncool, IMO.
That's a good point too.
That being said, off subject slightly, a good friend that is involved with Geico has told me on several occasions that it's one of the better insurance companies, and they actually treat their employees very well.
I also read recently that when you call Geico, a real person answers the phone, and you don't get 15 minutes of computer generated phone menus.
That alone is enough to make me switch to Geico, which my wife already wants to do.
No question, google is a good search engine. I think the case had merits on *both* sides.
It's interesting this was posted, as my wife has wanted us to switch to Geico for several months now, several of our friends switched to Geico in the past year, and all said they were very satisfied. Seldom do I see or hear anyone talking up a large company like that.
It sucks that both Geico and Progresseive are owned by liberals, but what can you do? Anyway, I have had Geico for five years and they are great. They answer the phone promptly, and the people that you talk to are reasonably intelligent and can solve your issues.
Recently, they settled a $20,000 claim against me and didn't even raise my rates.
bingo!
That's the same thing we heard.
Recently, they settled a $20,000 claim against me and didn't even raise my rates.
You were found at fault in an accident? And they didn't raise your rates? WOW. My insurance company would have raised your rates before the cops showed up to the accident. That's why were probably going to go ahead and to switch to Geico.
If Geico wanted top billing on the advertisment side (or top) then they should pay for it.
Aw, come on. Google is giving you a free hit right at the top of the search. Maybe you should pay them for the FREE advertisement.
Hey buddy 1. I have 2. What make you think your opinion is any better that my opinion (I.E. What make you think you do know and I don't know about what were talking about)
Well, it was one of those scam deals where a guy stopped short in front of me, I put a tiny little scratch on his bumper, and he got some doctor to say he had spinal cord injuries. The guy had done it before. Anyway, Geico settled for 20K.
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.