[ I am planning to buy ads on Google to display my messages ahead of yours
when people search on your trademark, thus drawing your customers to me! ]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/technology/internet/15google.html?_r=1&hpw
*Companies Object to Google Policy on Trademarks*
When Audrey Spangenberg idly typed “FirePond,” the name of her small
software company, into
Google<
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/google_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org>
this
year, she was not happy with what she saw.
Her company’s site came up as the top search listing. But just above it,
Google showed the ads of competitors that had paid Google to display their
marketing messages whenever someone searched for FirePond, a registered
trademark. “I was furious,” said Ms. Spangenberg, chief executive of FPX,
which does business as FirePond. “It is inappropriate for Google to sell my
trademark for a profit,” she said. “It really misleads our customers and our
potential customers.” On Monday, FPX filed a class-action suit against
Google in federal court in Texas, saying that Google had infringed on its
trademark and challenging Google’s policies on behalf of all trademark
owners in the state. Legal experts said it was the first class-action suit
against Google over the issue.
But Google’s acceptance of such competitive uses of trademarks has irked
many other companies, including the likes of American
Airlines<
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/amr_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org>
and Geico, which have filed suits against Google and settled them. Many
brand owners say the practice abuses their brands, confuses customers and
increases their cost of doing business.
None of this, apparently, is giving Google much reason to reconsider. This
month, it expanded to more than 190 new countries its policy of allowing
anyone to buy someone else’s trademark as a trigger for an ad. And late
Thursday it announced that it would allow limited use of trademarks in the
text of some search ads, even if the trademark owner objects.
[ ~~~~~~~ much omitted from long article~~~]
But defenders of Google’s practice say it is good for consumers. People
who are shopping for a new camera, for example, will benefit from seeing an
ad for a competing, and perhaps cheaper, product that they might not have
known about.
Google declined to comment on the FPX case, but said it would defend itself.
Ms. Spangenberg said she filed her suit in hopes of forcing Google to
reverse its policy.
“It is inappropriate for Google to sell my trademark for a profit,” she
said. “It really misleads our customers and our potential customers.”
midrange.com
