• http://www.searchmarketingcommunications.com Cohn

    If the employee’s alleged actions aren’t –

    1. A breach of trust
    2. Grounds for dismissal

    Then what are they?

  • http://www.solardave.com Dugdale

    Wow, this story is amazing and a little scary at the same time. Sounds like Jeremy has a pretty good case.

    If this actually goes to trial and Google has to show some of their systems in court it will be very interesting. Perhaps Google’s black box will be a little less black after this.

  • http://silvery.com Chris Smith

    I have a theory as to how the trademark block was bypassed:

    Google may allow ads to target trademark keywords, while the system checks against trademarks in static text.

    However, I think that the ad may have been set up dynamically to parse the search keyword into the ad copy — something their blocks may not’ve been set to detect. Yet.

  • http://www.planetc1.com/ chiropractic

    Good to see Schoemaker working to protect his brand, it must be frustrating as hell to keep tabs on all the activity of those trying to profit off of his name. Hope this goes well for him.

  • JezC

    @Chris Smith – Dynamic Keyword Insertion can block trademarked terms as Keywords. It isn’t a perfect mechanism, though.

    Additionally, human error can result in similar problems. A client of mine with a UK national brand was unable to use their own name, while a US dentist was advertising with the trademarked name in the UK (and was wildly unlikely to attract customers for a radically different product). Mistakes happen, as well as intentional activity. Both problems were caused by Google staff checking boxes adjacent to the ones that should have been checked.

    The article describes something that sounds intentional and malicious, though.