• Stupidscript

    It will continue to be ridiculously difficult to sue individual advertisers for.

    For example, I challenge anyone to be able to determine exactly which keyphrase was matched when an ad is served in each instance. In our own log files we see radical variations. For example, if the *same* visitor (broad) searches for “find an apple” during a 5-minute span, we could see matches on “apple”, “fruit”, “find food”, “fruit rot” and many, many others, depending on the blend of broad, phrase and exact terms we were bidding on.

    It would be impossible for a third party without access to the actual bidding keyphrase list to be able to determine whether the match was on a trademarked name that was being bid on or on a synonym/related phrase.

    If you (broad) search for “Louis Vuitton”, you may match on “luis vaiton”, “lv”, “louis”, “louis armstrong”, “fashion accessories”, etc.etc. It would be prohibitively expensive and relatively useless to petition the court for a subpoena for each advertiser suspected of bidding on a trademarked term because of the massive number of matches that did not include the term.

    As an aside, I do find it interesting that the analysis of the ruling provided by Eric Goldman implies that in order to protect themselves from being removed from the “ISP” class, Google must NOT become more active in identifying trademark abuse. It seems their only protection is to continue being passive, and to let the individuals duke it out without taking sides. Not too shabby. “Sit on your hands unless you want to get dragged into court.” No wonder Google likes the ruling!

  • Stupidscript

    It will continue to be ridiculously difficult to sue individual advertisers for trademark infringement based on search results.

    For example, I challenge anyone to be able to determine exactly which keyphrase was matched when an ad is served in each instance. In our own log files we see radical variations. For example, if the *same* visitor (broad) searches for “find an apple” during a 5-minute span, we could see matches on “apple”, “fruit”, “find food”, “fruit rot” and many, many others, depending on the blend of broad, phrase and exact terms we were bidding on.

    It would be impossible for a third party without access to the actual bidding keyphrase list to be able to determine whether the match was on a trademarked name that was being bid on or on a synonym/related phrase.

    If you (broad) search for “Louis Vuitton”, you may match on “luis vaiton”, “lv”, “louis”, “louis armstrong”, “fashion accessories”, etc.etc. It would be prohibitively expensive and relatively useless to petition the court for a subpoena for each advertiser suspected of bidding on a trademarked term because of the massive number of matches that did not include the term.

    As an aside, I do find it interesting that the analysis of the ruling provided by Eric Goldman implies that in order to protect themselves from being removed from the “ISP” class, Google must NOT become more active in identifying trademark abuse. It seems their only protection is to continue being passive, and to let the individuals duke it out without taking sides. Not too shabby. “Sit on your hands unless you want to get dragged into court.” No wonder Google likes the ruling!