Google Fights For Right To Use Trademarked Search Keywords
The search engine company makes its best case to sell trademarked search keywords as ad triggers, even against a competitor such as Rescuecom.
Is Google guilty of trademark infringement when one of its advertisers purchases a competitor's trademark as a search keyword that triggers its ad, even though Google doesn't present the trademarked term in the ad itself?
That's a question Google and Rescuecom has been litigating since September 2004. In September 2006, the judge in the case granted Google's motion to dismiss, but Rescuecom appealed.
Earlier this week, Google filed a brief in the ongoing case that makes a clear and compelling argument for why Google's sale of trademarked search keywords as ad triggers is legitimate.
Michael H. Page, an attorney representing Google on behalf of Keker & Van Nest LLP, asserts that businesses associate their products with competitors all the time and that doing so doesn't create confusion in the minds of consumers -- which is what trademark law aims to prevent.
"Generic brands are placed next to known brands on store shelves for the express purpose of diverting customers from the brand they are seeking to another, and their manufacturers pay for that placement," explains Page in the brief. "Advertisers deliberately select magazine ad placements next to articles about their competitors. ... All manner of companies pay for coupon placements selected based on a customer's purchase of their competitors' products. And so on. Of course they are seeking to 'hijack' or 'divert' consumers who have indicated an interest in their competitors' products. That's the point of contextual advertising -- to target ads at consumers who are actively interested in your type of product, rather than indiscriminately at the world at large."
But none of these examples, Page points out, falsely identifies the source of goods or services and thus does not represent a violation of trademark law. Google isn't using the term "Rescuecom" as actual text in its ads. It's merely allowing advertisers to be seen when a searcher is inquiring about a competitor.
Rescuecom's counterargument doesn't quite seem so strong. Rescuecom's attorney, Edmund J. Gegan, suggests that consumers inured to cutthroat competition at the mall are essentially clueless online and see no distinction between paid placement on a search results page and organic search results.
"A consumer browsing through a magazine or a market's shelves expects products or advertisements near each other to potentially be competitive," says Gegan in the Rescuecom brief. "However, when an Internet user submits a search query, such as 'Rescuecom,' to an Internet Search Engine, the user expects the search results to be relevant to the query, and to be placed in order of relevance, with the results at the very top being the most relevant."
The online world may indeed be complex, but no more so than real life. What Rescuecom wants is a lower standard for consumer confusion online than offline. Bet on Google to win this one.
5 Top Federal Initiatives For 2015As InformationWeek Government readers were busy firming up their fiscal year 2015 budgets, we asked them to rate more than 30 IT initiatives in terms of importance and current leadership focus. No surprise, among more than 30 options, security is No. 1. After that, things get less predictable.
Join us for a roundup of the top stories on InformationWeek.com for the week of December 7, 2014. Be here for the show and for the incredible Friday Afternoon Conversation that runs beside the program!