“We conducted a full legal and business review in the UK and Ireland before we made this change."
“We are confident that our policy is compliant with UK & Irish law.”
So looks like we have interesting times ahead. A quick search on Google tonight for "teletext" shown only official teletext ads, so it looks as if a few people are being careful. Rightly so. I'll be watching this case with interest, if it goes to court and Teletext win they it will undoubtedly open the floodgates for thousands of other claims. After all, the sponsored search results are awash with companies bidding on their competitors names and trademarks. But is it legal? Well I'm not a lawyer so am not qualified to answer that question. But one thing that does bother me is that Google are always banging on about giving users the search results they really want that are relevant and specific. Fine, so can somebody explain to me how a user searching for say "Thomas Cook" will find ads for rival travel agents relevant?? Surely the simple fact that I typed in the name of a well known travel agent/site means that's what I am searching for? Update: Just searched and looks like TravelSupermarket.com are trying their luck with Teletext!
Thanks to Chris for the tip on this story.
What I'm listening to right now: Ashanti Feat Nelly & Akon – "Body On Me"
Welcome to my blog. My name is Kieron Donoghue and I am the founder of ShareMyPlaylists.com.
“so can somebody explain to me how a user searching for say Thomas Cook will find ads for rival travel agents relevant??”
I’ll explain it from a personal point of view. When I am looking for options on a product or service, I’ll often type in a brand that I already know so that I can find similar products or services. I do this when I’m in my consumer buying mode and would think lots of other people do the same.
I think this is especially important where trademarked brand names are essentially the de facto term for a generic product. So in the UK anyone advertising vacuum cleaners could not use the term Hoover since it is a trademarked name.
When I go to a supermarket I see an advert for Persil, when I get to the sector where the washing powders are I see Daz next to it….Daz does not say it is Persil…but sometimes when I went looking for Persil I actually meant any soap powder.
We are in talks with lots of suppliers at present about this and the noise we are hearing is thye will wait to see where the dust settles, but no one has yet mentioned going to court.
I suppose if you have lots of lawyers you have to keep them busy:)
Doug
That’s where we differ I reckon Doug. If I’m going shopping for Persil then I buy Persil
I don’t agree with Google’s policy changes although I can see what Doug means, just not with his example of washing powders. Where brand names have almost become as common as the product name (using Marc’s example of Hoover vs vacuum cleaner) then you wouldn’t have to wait long for a customer in an electrics shop asking where the “hoovers” are.
“Fine, so can somebody explain to me how a user searching for say Thomas Cook will find ads for rival travel agents relevant?? ”
Because they’re obvsiously looking for a holiday. So let’s offer them a list of other sites that offer holidays! That simple!
If they’re looking for thomas cook jobs then it doesn’t matter, even “thomas cook contact” wouldn’t be an issue!
So then if you managed to trademark Ukoffer.com (which I don’t think you can being so generic, but maybe) then anyone who bids on your term can get sued.
Sounds like it’s not just the big boys that can end up sueing to me. I myself have trademarks currently going through the process so I’ll be checking my search term with interest.
IMO if consumers are looking for Thomas Cook then no-one else should be sitting on their brand. They didn’t search “holidays”, they searched Thomas Cook.
It’s pointed out time and time again in studies of browsing habits that many consumers search a company name rather than type in the domain name, very often in the actual browser bar. I use the internet every day and in most cases I’ll use the searchbox in my google toolbar to get to a domain as it’s a few keystrokes less than typing out a domain.
Where a TradeMark becomes a generic term is a different case entirely, as highlighted by Google’s own obsession with clamping down on “Google” becoming a verb and being unable to protect its TM status.
At a more personal level, if searching “Lee McCoy” on google returned a few SEO sites in the ads I think you wouldn’t be too happy about it?
I just simply don’t understand how this can be legal. If I have a trademarked term (which I do) and someone puts it in an advert without my permission, then surely that’s not legal?!
Pingback: The Great Trademark Trigger Mystery! | One Little Duck - Affiliate Blog
So you invest thousands/millions/billions in your company & your brand, building it up over decades. You protect your brand by applying a registered trademark to it, which is supposed to stop others taking advantage of the goodwill you’ve built. How can it be legal for a media owner to sell advertising on that brand name?
Even trademarked brands that become synonymous with a generic term have rights – they built that brand effectively enough for it to achieve that level of recognition.
Fine – if a Thomas Cook TV advertising campaign increases the searches for “holidays” and their competitors gain some benefit, that’s how it is. If a Thomas Cook advertising campaign generates more searches for “Thomas Cook” – sorry, can’t see how anyone else can have rights to that traffic.
“Google the web with Yahoo!” – when do we see those ads coming up?
Consider an offline example: Joe’s Hardware pays to advertise on the hoarding opposite a big B&Q (UK DIY shed) store, advertising great prices, personal service, and expert staff. Three things not greatly in evidence at B&Q.
Good strategy for Joe? Of course: he’s placing his ad exactly where it will be seen by people who have an interest in buying hardware products – tapping into the extra footfall generated by B&Q. And he’s crafting his ad to capitalise on his competitive advantages relative to B&Q.
If a customer looks up B&Q in the Yellow Pages, drives there, sees Joe’s advertisement and ends up buying from Joe, that is perfectly legitimate. On the web, you don’t drive to B&Q.com; you search on Google and click there. If Joe uses “B&Q” as a search term, it’s exactly the same strategy, and should be legal in exactly the same way.
I do agree with NArc, Iwhen your searching for a trademarked brand names are essentially the de facto term for a generic product. So irespective of your location, the principle should all be thesame. Type in the “keyword” with the brand to narrow it down to exact ad matches.