A US court was wrong when it ruled that Google's selling of a trade marked term to a competing company to be used as a trigger for advertising was not 'use in commerce'. The appeals court has said that the use could infringe the trade mark. Google sells advertising space beside its search engine results. The adverts are chosen …
Anyone who complains should have their trademarks removed from Google's cache completely. That'll learn 'em
Buy 'google' as a keyword
and see what their reponse is :)
Anyone who has their privacy or trademark infringed by Google should sue them.
That'll learn 'em.
Just out of interest what is the term for someone brainwashed into believing that Google can do no wrong? If there isn't a consensus, I propose "Gooley" as only a complete nad would worship before their altar.
Judges over reaching
"the searcher is likely to believe mistakenly that the different name which appears is affiliated with the brand name sought in the search".
That's a statement of fact by the court that is not based on any evidence presented to the court. I don't believe that there is any evidence available to suggest that ordinary users of Google are in fact confused or misled about the status of the advertisers on Google.
not 'use in commerce'?
It's not 'use in commerce'?
I work for said company in article
And the owner is one of the biggest dirt bags on the planet in my opinion. Money is the only thing he wants and will milk someone out of all he can. If try to exercise your rights, if you can get pushed under the rug and forgotten thats fine. But if not and you try to bring suit he will spare no expense to counter sue you into the ground for whatever he can find.
That said I personally try to do the best I can and play an honest game myself. But what I dont understand is many of our customers try to dial 800-GEEKSQUAD for you know who but apparently alot of them cant spell and dial 800-GEEKSQAD which oddly enough he owns the number for....wouldnt that count as the same thing as trademark infringement or worse when the attempt to make a distinction between companies is slim at best?
/Anon because well should be clear
The point that the court of appeals is saying is that Google is engaged in commerce by selling a competitor the trademark as an adword.
So suppose McDonalds wants to buy Burgerking's name as an adword. So that when someone searches for Burgerking, a URL for McDonalds pops up. Hey! One bad burger joint is just as good as any other fast food burger joint, no? :-)
With respect to the AC, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that rescuecom has purchased a phone number which may match an incorrect 'spelling' of a competitor. This isn't the same thing as google is selling the trademark as an adword.
- 'Kim Kardashian snaps naked selfies with a BLACKBERRY'. *Twitterati gasps*
- Crawling from the Wreckage THE DEATH OF ECONOMICS: Aircraft design vs flat-lining financial models
- Pics Facebook's Oculus unveils 360-degree VR head tracking Crescent Bay prototype
- Bargain basement iPhone shoppers BEWARE! eBay exposes users to phishing vuln
- Google+ GOING, GOING ... ? Newbie Gmailers no longer forced into mandatory ID slurp