Comments on: Travel industry not happy with Google AdWords policy changes: Teletext initiate legal proceedings against Directline Holidays

By: accounts

accounts — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:16:30 +0000

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.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:59:03 +0000

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.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:09:09 +0000

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?

By: The Great Trademark Trigger Mystery! | One Little Duck - Affiliate Blog

The Great Trademark Trigger Mystery! | One Little Duck - Affiliate Blog — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:25:10 +0000

[...] be watching Teletext’s Trademark Trigger Legal Proceedings with extra [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:19:16 +0000

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?!

By: Chris Clarkson

Chris Clarkson — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:54:16 +0000

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?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 22 May 2008 13:09:08 +0000

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.

By: Lee McCoy

Lee McCoy — Thu, 22 May 2008 12:02:39 +0000

“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!

By: Joff

Joff — Thu, 22 May 2008 10:12:12 +0000

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.

By: Kieron

Kieron — Thu, 22 May 2008 08:44:21 +0000

That’s where we differ I reckon Doug. If I’m going shopping for Persil then I buy Persil