• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Google AdWords: Facilitating advertising, or trademark infringement?

July 3, 2009 by Amanda Branch (IPilogue Editor)

Google AdWords is Google’s advertising product which offers pay-per-click (PPC) advertising, as well as placement targeted advertising for both text and banner ads. AdWords was Google’s main source of revenue in 2008, bringing in approximately $21 billion dollars. With PPC advertisements, advertisers can purchase a specific word or term that will trigger their ad so when a user searches on Google, ads that are related to the search terms will show up on the right side of the screen as “sponsored links”. Placement targeted advertisements, on the other hand, will be placed on relevant sites within Google’s content network according to the keywords, domain names, topics and demographic targeting preferences specified by the advertiser. Since ads are usually allotted the whole advertising space, as opposed to splitting the advertising block with 1-4 other ads, the placement targeted advertisements often result in higher visibility. 

Google AdWords has come under fire for allowing advertisers to purchase keywords and terms that are registered or common law trademarks of other companies. In 2007 the company Rescuecom, a US company providing on-site computer service and sales, sued Google for trademark infringement and dilution under the Lanham Act.  Rescuecom had registered their trademark; however, through advertising with Google, Rescuecom’s competitors were able to purchase Rescuecom’s trademark, resulting in users trying to find Rescuecom’s website being directed to a search results page full of links and ads for the competitors’ sites. Rescuecom’s action was dismissed because Google did not “use” Rescuecom’s trademark “in commerce” within the meaning of section 45 of the Lanham Act as the competitor’s ads did not display Rescuecom’s trademark.

So far in 2009, several new lawsuits have been filed against Google, including two class action suits, the focus of which is to recover damages and punitive fees from Google for trademark infringement. Any damage award or settlement would be split between class members. In May 2009, Firepond commenced a class action lawsuit against Google, MySpace, YouTube and others.  The key legal question will be whether Google’s sponsored links are sufficient to cause confusion among Internet-users. Firepond claims that the practice of sponsored links confuses their customers and re-directs a portion of their business to the competitors with ads on Google. Firepond argues that Google is aware that this practice will cause problems for trademark owners. In support of their position, Firepond was able to find a financial prospectus in which Google acknowledged that their new policy of no longer disabling ads, even if they display registered trademarks of third-parties, would likely lead to more trademark infringement lawsuits. Some commentators think the class action suit could be risky; if court does not find Google to be liable, then the class members are bound by the decision and cannot sue Google in their own action.

In the past, Google has required advertisers either own the mark, or have a licence from the trademark owner, before being able to use it in their ads. Obviously undeterred by the trademark infringement lawsuits, Google has recently lifted this policy, allowing businesses to use trademarks in text advertisements without having permission from the owner. It will be interesting to learn the outcome of the class action suits and if this outcome, whether or not it is favourable for Google, will cause Google to change their policies in order to avoid future lawsuits.

Posted in Trademarks, Uncategorized

One Response to “Google AdWords: Facilitating advertising, or trademark infringement?”

  1. George Nathanael (IPilogue Editor), on July 4, 2009 at 4:30 pm Said:

    It’s interesting that this is a class action suit. If the key question really is “whether Google’s sponsored links are sufficient to cause confusion among Internet-users”, it seems intuitive that this would greatly vary and be dependent on what ads are being matched with what keywords. Even though I think Google is being unfair by allowing its AdWords program to display search hits for various products and services as well as ads of paying competitors of those products and services, if the courts find that they’re not breaking the law, other class members suffering greater losses from the more blatantly obvious confusing advertisements will be at a loss. This class action is in fact a big risk for other trademark holders, as was pointed out.

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Creative Commons Licensing: Types, Enforceability and Potential Problems | “Reasonable Royalty Payments” In Need Of A Reform »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Women and IP

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Nassim Nasser (IPilogue Editor) on Clash of the Smartphone Titans - Nokia vs. Apple
  • Michael McClurg on Lundbeck: The Duty of Good Faith Patent Prosecution
  • Keldeagh Lindsay on The Case of Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd.
  • Heather Hui-Litwin on Adding Some Obvious Flexibility
  • Fiona Li on The Concept of Life and Neocolonialism
  • monty cantsin on Old Issues but New Tricks: China uses the UNESCO Cultural Diversity Convention in a WTO dispute
  • Amanda Letourneau on The Concept of Life and Neocolonialism
  • monty cantsin on Old Issues but New Tricks: China uses the UNESCO Cultural Diversity Convention in a WTO dispute
  • Nicole Aylwin on Old Issues but New Tricks: China uses the UNESCO Cultural Diversity Convention in a WTO dispute
  • monty cantsin on Old Issues but New Tricks: China uses the UNESCO Cultural Diversity Convention in a WTO dispute
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • The Patentability of Business Methods in Canada: The Case of Amazon.com’s 1-Click technology
  • IP and its crucial role in start-ups
  • Who quizzes WHO’s role in solving the Influenza pandemic crisis: An Insight
  • Team Conan Leaving Jokes Behind
  • Maize as Cultural Heritage
  • The Case of Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd.
  • Google, Verizon: Adversaries in Net Neutrality debate join forces for future of Internet Openness
  • Lundbeck: The Duty of Good Faith Patent Prosecution
  • Recapping the IP Career Panel – Wednesday January 27
  • Clash of the Smartphone Titans – Nokia vs. Apple
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Commercialization (38)
  • Contracts (31)
  • copyright reform (44)
  • defamation (3)
  • events (21)
  • General (91)
  • Innovation (60)
  • Internet (88)
  • IP (520)
    • Copyright (254)
      • CD Levy (4)
      • Digital Downloads (30)
      • Digital Locks (9)
      • Fair Dealing (18)
      • Infringement (42)
      • Internet Sharing (45)
      • Literary Works (20)
      • Movies (19)
      • Music Industry (33)
      • Originality (15)
      • Ownership (37)
        • Licensees (10)
      • Subsidiary Rights (3)
    • Patents (151)
      • Cross Border Issues (26)
      • Electronic Processes (6)
      • Infringement (30)
      • Patent Trolls (7)
      • Patentability (42)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (36)
    • Trademarks (112)
      • Domain Names (23)
      • Famous Marks (5)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (2)
      • Personality Rights (7)
  • IP Course Topic (8)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (33)
  • Open-Source (13)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (94)
    • Electronic Databases (20)
    • Human Rights Issues (14)
    • Identity Theft (5)
  • Tech Transfer (9)
  • Technology (103)
  • Telecommunications (25)
  • Uncategorized (66)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736