Geico Vs Google???

Got this in a forwarded message today:
==============
The insurer charged the two companies with infringing on its trademarks when they sold them as keywords to Geico's rivals, so that the protected terms could appear in sponsored search results. According to the suit, that practice causes consumer confusion, in violation of the Lanham Act, the primary federal law covering trademark registration and protection.

"This practice deliberately misleads consumers and allows Geico's competitors and these defendants to illegally exploit for their own commercial purposes Geico's investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in its brand," company spokeswoman Janice Minshall wrote in an e-mail.

The insurer is seeking damages and an injunction against Google's and Overture's use of its service marks in their advertising programs.
================

Something's happening!

How old was that email...lol

I think that lawsuit was filed last march or april.

Haha....... I always thought I was the last to find out about everything? :mregreen:

Coincidentally, opening arguments begin today in Federal District Court Alexandria, Virgina

The only link I have at the moment is to an internal New York Times article which requires login.

What hope does anyone stand against the powerful force that is the Google defense?

I'd say the multi billion dollar insurance industry has more than a good chance of winning something like that. Google is big, but not in comparison to the insurance titans out there. Also remember that insurance companies are sued daily, so you better believe they have good legal representation. (I used to work for the third largest insurance company in america ;) )

Aren't there lots of precedence cases re using trademarks in paid results?

Geico has a trademark on their name. If they see someone else using it or allowing it to be used and do not defend their property then it will become part of the public domain.

IMO this case has more to do with the principle of trademark than it does with insurance or search engines or deep pockets.

Well, the verdict is in. Geico lost their lawsuit against Google. I just heard it on the radio. I'll try and track down an article.

This is a big issue at the moment with affiliate marketing.

Its something that is causing big hassle with PPC and other uses of trade marks and brand names.

here is the link

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh9303 3_2004-12-15_16-49-56_n15343760_newsml

This is another link with the story: Google wins trademark ad lawsuit

I can't believe that it came out this way. Geico needs to sue the advertisers now.

This is Good News for us affiliates! Geico should take the wasted energy on litigation and put that energy into creating a better affiliate program at CJ... do you think Geico affiliates Ads show up beside Geico's competitors?

I agree a trademark name shouldn't be used in the ad itself, but as keyword it should be left alone. I made this analogy somewhere else a while back. A keyword is just a key to a door. It gets you to where you want to go. Your not advertising until you get through that door... If Google assigned a number to the Geico's results page in place of their Keyword, they couldn't say anything. Geico = 123 and POW your ads show up in the SERPs next to theirs...

Matt

P.S. I actually have a special pleasure seeing Geico being defeated. I've been an insurance agent for almost 10 years. I've been watching this case. This is as good as taking business away from them.

Now if I'm reading into this correctly, the competitors using AdWords aren't using Geico in their ad content whatsoever. I They are simply showing their ads when somebody types Geico into the Google search engine. What's wrong with that? I have been using my competitors names as AdWords keyword terms for years. As long as the Geico trademarked name isn't being used in the competitor’s ads, I figure there is no harm done.