• http://www.intellectual-property.it Gareth Dickson

    There’s a useful summary of the Binder & Binder decision here: http://bit.ly/fCiYBV Surprisingly blunt assessment of the Defendant’s actions, but there may be a rehearing / appeal based on a more recent appellate decision in the 9th Circuit (it’s name has escaped me!).

  • http://www.roirevolution.com Chris Crompton

    There are three levels at play when bidding on a trademarked keyword:
    1. Showing up for the keyword search without using the trademarked term in your ad.
    2. Using the trademark term in your ad without trying to impersonate the trademark owner (i.e. “Alternative to XYZ Brand”)
    3. Trying to impersonate the trademark owner with your ad to mislead their customers.

    Level 3 is obviously wrong and unethical and will get you into legal trouble. I can’t think of anything unethical about Levels 1 & 2.

  • http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2008/12/promo/max-kennerlys-twitter-landing-page/index.html Maxwell S. Kennerly

    Courts in the United States have consistently allowed businesses to use their competitors’ names as triggers for adWords, and that wasn’t really a problem here.

    The problem here was that the business in question then set up an ad which claimed an affiliation with Binder & Binder and then led users to a website which claimed to be affiliated with Binder & Binder. Both of those are big no-nos, since they create a likelihood of confusion that the website in question is in fact affiliated with Binder & Binder.

    In short: you can use coke or and-aid or xerox as the search term trigger for your ad, but if your ad or website creates the appearance of being one of those company’s websites, you can expect to get yourself sued.