Buying a competitor's brand

TalkBack 1 of 7:: Next »

Thread View
Flat View

I think you misunderstood the ruling: I think you may have misunderstood the case and the ruling. First off the issue is trademark, not copyright, law as you suggest. While copyright gives you more complete control over content you create, the purpose of trademark law is simply to prevent customer confusion (and, in some cases, brand dilution). Simply buying an ad to show up when someone searches on a competitor does not necessarily lead to brand confusion.

The problem is when someone puts up an ad that is likely to confuse someone. So, some of the examples you include may be confusing to users, so that they do not know who is the official seller of the software. In those cases, the companies could make a case for trademark infringement.

However, that's not specifically what this case was about. What it was about was whether or not *Google* is liable when someone *else* buys a keyword. The company who buys the ad is liable if the ad is found to be a violation of trademark law, but is *Google* also liable?

What the judge found here is that, no, Google is not liable. The use of the ad is not considered the equivalent of Google using the trademark in commerce, and thus there is no violation of trademark law.

As for the issue of using your competitor's brand in your ad, that's LONG been shown to be perfectly legal, as long as it's clear that there's no confusion. It's not a "wild west" situation at all. You think "the Pepsi challenge" should have been illegal?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a competitor's name in your ad, so long as you are not trying to suggest you *are* your competitor.; Posted by: mmasnick Posted on: 09/30/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use