Will Utah’s New Trademark Bill Stop Competitive Keyword Buys?

Wow. Via Techdirt, news from the EFF that the Utah legislature has passed a Trademark Protection Act law preventing people from buying ads linked to terms that are also trademarks of others. The Trademark Blog notes the law probably violates the US Constitution. Certainly it will be hard to enforce. In addition, we’ve got US federal rulings that already might ride any state laws.

The law:

Establishes a new type of mark, called an electronic registration mark, that may 10 not be used to trigger advertising for a competitor and creates a database for use in 11 administering marks.

Want to reserve your mark? That will cost up to $250 annually. Once registered, it gives the owner the ability to take action against anyone deemed violating protection by, among other things, using the registered word in a way deemed to cause confusion:

uses an electronic registration mark to cause the delivery or display of an advertisement for a business, goods, or a service:
(i) of the same class, as defined in Section 70-3a-308 , other than the business, goods, or service of the registrant of the electronic registration mark; or
(ii) if that advertisement is likely to cause confusion between the business, goods, or service of the registrant of the electronic registration mark and the business, goods, or service advertised.

Liability is determined based on whether the ad is shown in the state or if the advertiser is located in the state.

Problems with the law? From me, to start, search engines can’t tell for certain if someone is in Utah. Yes, they do provide some local targeting tools, but these are not foolproof. As a result, some advertisers potentially could not run campaigns that would be "allowed" in other states for fear they would show up for some in Utah.

Another issue is that past rulings in the US, at the federal level, have found linking ads to terms that are also trademarks are not a violation of trademark law. So this positions Utah as trying to trump federal trademark protection.

In addition, Utah’s own general counsel has warned that the law might violate the US constitution by infringing on interstate commerce protections. But this was one of the best parts of the warning:

A large Internet search engine must first determine whether a user is located within Utah. If the user is in Utah, the Internet search engine must check search terms against Utah’s registry of trademarks to prevent the unlawful triggering of advertising. Literally millions of search requests from locations worldwide each day would be subject to verification of location. Once verified, the search engine would then use a separate process for delivering advertising to Utah. This results in multiple systems of advertisement for a search engine to manage.

Can you imagine registering common words like "Orange" or "Egg" or, hmm, "Apple" for protection? Then someone wants to use these words in a non-competitive way. How can the system automatically know this?

The law was signed on March 19, so I guess we’ll see what happens next. For Yahoo advertisers, at least, it should pose little worry. Yahoo already prevents some forms of directly competitive advertising, a policy it started in March 2006. That policy came about not because of legal threats, by the way. It was – in my opinion — because Yahoo started getting major brand holders to spend money on television ads that generated searches, only to discover competitors riding on the coattails of the upsurge in searches with their own ads (as Mazda did to Pontiac).

Related Topics: Channel: Industry | Legal: Trademarks


About The Author: is a Founding Editor of Search Engine Land. He’s a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Search Engine Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn


Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  


Other ways to share:

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • http://www.venturen.net/ roblaw


    This is absolutely absurd. Utah seems to have been at the forefront of idiotic laws regarding online activity.

    This is placing a burden on the engines, on the advertiser, on the… you catch my drift.

    Utah had some anti-spam laws in the past. In fact, there was one individual “Brittney Fenn” who sued thousands of companies. Well, her lawyers did. The court was none too pleased. The plaintiff would benefit $10 for each offense. The lawyers, full legal costs. I wonder how much the lawyers stand to benefit from the fights that will ensue.

    As always, keep up the great work. Love the Daily Searchcast (http://dailysearchcast.com/).


  • http://forshizelmynizel.blogspot.com Frank T

    ohhhh man… I’m laughing. It seems that people in Utah think they can control every aspect of life. But we here about this type of thing quite a bit living in Idaho.

    This law makes as much sense as their “member” law a few years back. To enter a bar, you absolutely must be a “member” and pay your member fee! If you’re not a member, you can have someone inside the bar sponsor you.

    I guess their online Utah “member” fee is now $250. When will it stop? GREED and MONEY is the motive here. I wonder what company was the victim of this??? And who is the head of this company? How do they think they can possibly enforce this?

    Love the Podcast Danny, best of luck to you in 2007

    Frank in Idaho

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest


Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States


Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech

Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!



Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide