Google Revises Trademark Trigger Policy

[figleaf]

Like I say, I just don't think anyone will think it prudent to chase the trademark issue in court, whether its against google or another trademark holder. Worth reminding peeps of this too...

Google avoids AdWords jury trial as opponent backs down | The Register

(Feel like I should add this is my own opinion and not that of my employer!)

[Shane]

I'm confused.

Does this mean its legal for companies/people to bid on trademarked terms...

...or that its illegal but it's the adwords advertisers who'd get sued, not Google?!

it means it's legal as far as google are concerned so they are going to allow you to appear on trademarked terms but NOT include them in the adcopy.. only the outcome of the inevitable legal action that will occurr will establish what's legal and what's not

[Shane]

relevant extract from the agency email sent to us by google which clarifies their stance on it :

"I want to make it clear that this is a revision that only affects
keyword bidding. Advertisers and Agencies are accustomed to the fact
that users typing in their trademarked term as part of a two, three or
four word search will have always resulted in competitor ads running.
For example, someone typing in 'x,y,z credit cards' in the search box
will see lots of different, relevant credit card ads because broad
matching will bring up ads for those advertisers bidding against the
keywords 'credit card'. So, we hope this will be a familiar step for
agencies and advertisers.

However, despite this trademarked keyword change, our strict ads text
policy remains unchanged: unauthorised advertisers will not be able to
use a monitored trademarked term in their ad text. So, ads of
trademark owners are still likely to have the edge over those of
non-trademark owners because these ads can use the trademark terms in
the ad text: they are likely to have higher click through rates; and
therefore more likely to achieve a better position in the sponsored
links.

This change brings the UK and Ireland into line with the US and Canada
which has been running this policy since 2004. A good proportion of
users in the US and Canada have been clicking on competitor ads even
when searching against trademarked terms, suggesting that they find
the greater number of ads relevant and helpful when researching or
making a purchase."

[Tel]

Hi Dan, Thanks for the reponse. I've sent you a PM regarding the feedback and contribution I gave.
Have a top weekend everyone.
Col.

[Travel Pixel]

I think this change of policy will most probably have an effect in sectors where there are many similar style merchants offering the same products....

So perhaps hotel aggregators or retailers that cater for a similar audience.

Currys | Dixons
Dixons | Currys

etc

Dave

[3wdl]

I was ill in bed all day yesterday with the flu (still not much better today) but couldn't get this subject off my mind.

Basically, I think it's a bit **** - it will potentially mean more sales going via the affiliate channel, but it will mean more competitor / brand terms and this is not always good.

It's a pure greed thing from google and it's really going to make like a lot harder in the long run.

Will be interesting to see how paid search affiliate policies now change.

[aotagain]

Google have a neverending flood of trademark complaints and this might put the ball more into individual companies courts to deal with each other directly by spending money on lawyers, rather than involving Google (who don't get paid directly for their policing).

Where you have some companies bidding on each others keywords, this becomes complicated as many companies are paying for offline brand exposure, the benefits of which can then be 'piggybacked' by other companies. I'm sure Google would prefer not to be involved in the middle of disputes if possible, particularly those involving issues of who 'owns' a keyword; what was the intent of the person who put the keyword into the search; is a keyword used as a generic term eg. Hoover; is a keyword part of a domain which would otherwise be considered just another part of the language eg. should a company called 'Flight Deals' have any right to stop anyone bidding on 'flight deals' as a phrase match etc. etc. (just thinking of the nonsense surrounding the Easy empire !).

Passing off by using a actual trademark in an advert is an entirely different matter and is a clearer legal issue and more easily policed imo.

In the 'real' world, there are long-established precedents when it comes to using some other company's logo or name in an advert, especially if monetary gain is likely.

[aotagain]

Is it just me or does the following mean that a complaint investigated and upheld before 4th April won't hold anyway because of the 3rd. point below. ie. if a keyword is restricted as a result of a complaint before 4th. April, it just needs to be put into another campaign to restart after May ?

Points 1 and 3 seem to be mutually exclusive...?

- Complaints received prior to April 4, 2008:
We will investigate complaints against trademark use in ad text and keywords. Complaints will be processed according to the current policy.

- Complaints received on or after April 4, 2008:
If the complaint requests that we prevent use of the trademark in ad text, we will continue our efforts to support this request. Complaints will be processed under our revised procedure.

- All Complaints:
Beginning in May 2008, keywords that were disabled as a result of a trademark complaint and investigation will no longer be restricted in the UK and Ireland.

[loquax]

Interesting legal view from Alex Chapman

Be friendly - carry a stick | Chinwag - the UK's leading community media company for the new media industry

Jason

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Nice article, but if applied to PPC then it has to be applied to SEO & any sites which have commercial purposes.

ie You go into town to get something from Zavvi, last time you went there the premises next door were vacant. But this time Woolworths have opened up a store (next door) realising that cos Zavvi was a busy store, they could milk of some of the trade by being ideally located next door, plus the trade from their own brand. The sign above the Woolworths store says "Woolworths" not "Zavvi". ie relates to Zavvi not being in the copy of a sponsored ad, but simply taking advantage of location (ad placement)

All this is doing is encouraging competition.

Say you had an indexable page on your site listing 10 CD stores. When you examine your logs you see some traffic came in on a search string containing the brand "zavvi" but the user went of & bought from Woolworths.

Why is SEO any different from PPC? (Apart from maybe easier to appear prominently & not forgetting the brand appears on the website page but NOT in the ppc ad)

Why are more stringent rules applied to PPC?

Has anyone actually polled a cross section of people (internet users not in the business) to ask if they know the difference between search results & sponsored listings are or what are those thingies in boxes appearing on the right that say some word called sponsored. If they said the word "adverts" do we think less or more people will click on them?

Brand monitoring tools are going to be a must for keeping an eye out on the competition, but with Google broadmatching with synoymns & the possible impending automatic matching. It will no longer be possible to confirm whether or not a affiliate or competitor is brand bidding.

Watch out for knee jerk T&C's saying you cannot "appear" rather than you cannot "bid"... as well as forcing negatives which is out of the control of advertisers cos there are uncontrollable inflluences of Google's matching algo. This is impratical as well because PPC'ers have 100's if not 1000's of campaigns. Put the boot on the other foot, would a merchant put 10,000 affiliate brands as negatives in their campaigns. Of course they wouldn't.

The power of controlling brand has been taken away in unison with embedded search. It's levelled the playing field & made a mockery of existing over restrictive T&C's which as we know are more lengthy than any much needed merchant copy.

One thing I hope comes out of this is that Brand Bidding Groups get well & truly burned as they potentially compete with competitors. "Or will panic only encourage more?"

And remember for any advertisers, lets take a portion of these advertisers known as affiliates. If they are not signed up to a "brand program", if desired they could bid on that brand to promote a "competitor merchant", the network would have no jurisdiction as the affiliate is not signed to the "brand program" unless the other "competitor merchant" did the decent thing & ask affiliates not to bid on competitor brands ... noting there are a lots of affiliate programs which currently say it is okay to bid on competitor brands & even more which don't say you cannot ... but again its hard to prove if someone is bidding or not.

More revenue for Google yes, but also more opportunities for other advertisers, one thing I will say is that because of broadmatch on synonyms (expanded match) & possible pending automatic matching, maintaining the trademark enforcement rules would have been impossible even for Google to manage or police, because merchants & networks could & do make false assumptions.

Some may say that the brand in the copy or display url with receive a higher ctr (click thru rate) or pay less per click. The competitor can simply counter & say it's about ROI, if they are getting a positive ROI, that is what is going to truly matter to them.

This could open up opportunites for merchants to release the use of their display url's (noting though there is a single display url policy) & increases the worth of generic & product related terms. Where leaching agencies who have had an easy ride on simple brand terms might have to work for their money where the spend didn't acheive as high an roi as before.

Interesting times ahead for sure.

[loquax]

Nice article, but if applied to PPC then it has to be applied to SEO & any sites which have commercial purposes

It depends on your pov and how you dissect it.

If you compile a directory of sites about pants, then Mr Pants(TM) and Mrs Big Pants (TM) end up side by side because a third party has compiled a directory or written content etc etc. The user is offered a service by the 3rd party (or even search engine).

If Mr Pants(TM) isn't very good in their niche and at best can just copy how Mrs Big Pants(TM) works - whilst Mrs Big Pants (TM) has worked their cotton picking socks off to establish their brand - Mr Pants (TM) can now go "oh this is good I can now bid on 'Mrs Big Pants' trademark and try and snaffle some business".... no third party involved, no content, no directory - merely using the trademark of a.n.other to redirect trade... a bit like if Mr Pants stuffed their meta tags with Mrs Big Pants' trademark too (which is questionable in some legal circles).

The high street example is ok, but this isn't the high street - whilst Woolworths may well be next door to zavvi, they're not inside the store with a little stand of their own saying "hey we're next door by the way".

Jason

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Fair enough rebuttal, but perhaps brands think they have a divine right to be listed high organically or by sponsored links, at the end of the day who owns the search engine, not the advertiser / merchant. I am not disputing the perceived ethics of it but can understand why, but merchants maybe have been taking to much for granted falsely assuming the search engine is their property, the brand maybe (another philosopical discussion on whether the consumer really owns the brand), but the search engine is not theirs.

But still the brand is being taken "advantage" of for indexing & triggering purposes.

But how would you explain expanded broadmatch & auto matching which is out of the control of advertisers. And if this was the case then it counters the reasoning behind normal broadmatching.

Even normal broadmatch where a user searches for "Mrs Big Pants plus size briefs", but an advertiser is bidding on the hybrid element "plus size briefs". The competitor ad still appears.

[bapages]

Have just read Jason's blog

Google UK Gives Trademark Triggers The Bullet | One Little Duck - Affiliate Blog

And have a thought. He says 'under these new terms it must be ok for competitors and affiliates to bid on the trademark?'

I don't agree with this fully. I can still have it under the terms of my programme that affiliates cannot bid on trademark term and that is a rule they must abide to, whehter or not google will allow them to. What I can't prevent is say an affiliate for Ann Summers bidding on fig trademark name. Does everyone else have the same understanding?

PS I'm not discussing the virtues of allowing affiliates to bid on your trademark under your scheme, just the principle.

You can simply put a list of negative keyword in your policy.

On another matter my opinion is it is not classed as 'Passing off' if the competative ad does not make representations to claim to be a.n.other or associated with, I am sure Google have had very expensive lawyers deals with this firstly.

[themoff]

Does this mean that you can/need to have the brand name in the url? Such as

www.cheap-mrsbigpants-knickers, where mrsbigpants is the brand/TM

or can you not have the brand/trademark in the url under any circumstances? Thinking here about matched to display url policy from G.

Moff

[mattb811]

Hi Themoff,

The display url would still have to match the destination url, and the decision on whether to allow you to use the merchants brand name in your url would lie with the merchant. I would imagine that most merchants would be reluctant to allow an affiliate on their campaign to do this, as it creates ambiguity over which is the official listing.

Thanks,

Matt