Comments on: Google Rejects Campaign Ads http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html Internet Marketing News Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:00:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: HELM, WHM/cPanel, Windows, Linux and SEO Blog » Blog Archive » SearchCap: The Day In Search, October 15, 2007 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34609 HELM, WHM/cPanel, Windows, Linux and SEO Blog » Blog Archive » SearchCap: The Day In Search, October 15, 2007 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:51:16 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34609 [...] Google Rejects Campaign Ads, Marketing Pilgrim [...] [...] Google Rejects Campaign Ads, Marketing Pilgrim [...]

]]> By: Sasha T http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34293 Sasha T Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:39:42 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34293 I don't see what is the problem with this case? If the Google says no that means no and we are just to little to fight them. We are even smaller if they have the rule in theor TOS... S. I don’t see what is the problem with this case? If the Google says no that means no and we are just to little to fight them. We are even smaller if they have the rule in theor TOS…

S.

]]> By: Janet Meiners http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34291 Janet Meiners Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:26:08 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34291 Robert, There is a Google <a href="https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=6118&query=trademark&topic=&type=f&searchsource=policies&onClick=" rel="nofollow">trademark policy</a> for AdWords. It's often referred to as the trademark bidding policy. I have bid on trademarked terms - my competitors, which is ok. However, if the trademarked term is in the ad copy, and the trademark owner complains, Google can remove the ads. It's my understanding that MoveOn.org complained to Google and that is why the ads were discontinued. I know you've written about this issue. I'd be happy to discuss it further with you if you'd like. Janet Robert,
There is a Google trademark policy for AdWords. It’s often referred to as the trademark bidding policy.
I have bid on trademarked terms – my competitors, which is ok. However, if the trademarked term is in the ad copy, and the trademark owner complains, Google can remove the ads. It’s my understanding that MoveOn.org complained to Google and that is why the ads were discontinued.
I know you’ve written about this issue. I’d be happy to discuss it further with you if you’d like.
Janet

]]> By: Robert Cox http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34290 Robert Cox Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:38:38 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34290 Janet, Google does not have a "trademark bidding policy" and so that was not the issue either. Your article is wrong on many points and misleading on others. I have submitted my email address with this comment. I invite you to send an email and set up a call so I can clear up the confusion. Janet,

Google does not have a “trademark bidding policy” and so that was not the issue either.

Your article is wrong on many points and misleading on others. I have submitted my email address with this comment. I invite you to send an email and set up a call so I can clear up the confusion.

]]> By: Music Software http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34278 Music Software Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:36:35 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34278 I suspect that Google is growing too fast too soon. Its right hand does not know what its left hand is doing. Otherwise why should there be four different reasons for their action? I suspect that Google is growing too fast too soon. Its right hand does not know what its left hand is doing. Otherwise why should there be four different reasons for their action?

]]> By: Janet Meiners http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34252 Janet Meiners Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:51:52 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34252 Robert, You are correct, I changed my post. The ads violated Google's trademark bidding policy and were removed. It was not copyright infringement as I'd stated. Thanks Janet Robert,
You are correct, I changed my post. The ads violated Google’s trademark bidding policy and were removed. It was not copyright infringement as I’d stated.
Thanks
Janet

]]> By: Robert Cox http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34250 Robert Cox Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:09:14 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34250 Janet, You might want to get your facts in order before weighing on this matter. You wrote "campaign ads for Republican Senator Susan Collins, infringed on their trademark, they had the ads removed" Wrong. Not only did the ads not "infringe" on MoveOn's copyright, MoveOn never asserted this. And Google has not made this claim in ANY of the four statements they have given so far. Instead, Google invoked THE GOOGLE TRADEMARK POLICY as the reason for removing the ads. Their policy is that a trademark owner can require that only the trademark owner can use or authorize the use of a trademark - in any form, for any reason. The law, however, is very different. Under trademark law, there is no right of a trademark holder to prevent the non-infringing nominative use of their name. Nor is there a right of a trademark holder to prevent "disparagement" of a trademark. There is no legal reason why Collins' campaign could not run the ad. MoveOn took advantage of a flawed Google policy to suppress speech it did not like. Google has now provide FOUR different reasons for pulling the ad. When they finally settle on ONE answer we can then talk about the actual reason they pulled the ad but until then what we have here is a capricious invocation of baseless trademark claims being used by MoveOn to suppress political speech. The solution is simple: Google needs a new policy. Janet,

You might want to get your facts in order before weighing on this matter. You wrote “campaign ads for Republican Senator Susan Collins, infringed on their trademark, they had the ads removed”

Wrong.

Not only did the ads not “infringe” on MoveOn’s copyright, MoveOn never asserted this. And Google has not made this claim in ANY of the four statements they have given so far.

Instead, Google invoked THE GOOGLE TRADEMARK POLICY as the reason for removing the ads. Their policy is that a trademark owner can require that only the trademark owner can use or authorize the use of a trademark – in any form, for any reason.

The law, however, is very different.

Under trademark law, there is no right of a trademark holder to prevent the non-infringing nominative use of their name. Nor is there a right of a trademark holder to prevent “disparagement” of a trademark. There is no legal reason why Collins’ campaign could not run the ad. MoveOn took advantage of a flawed Google policy to suppress speech it did not like.

Google has now provide FOUR different reasons for pulling the ad. When they finally settle on ONE answer we can then talk about the actual reason they pulled the ad but until then what we have here is a capricious invocation of baseless trademark claims being used by MoveOn to suppress political speech.

The solution is simple: Google needs a new policy.

]]> By: Andy Beal http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34249 Andy Beal Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:13:10 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34249 I'm not a lawyer, but I thought owning the trademark was designed to prevent confusion or hijacking. It doesn't actually give you the right to prevent someone from ever using the word. Unless the ads were trying to mislead the searcher into believing they were official MoveOn ads, Google has it wrong. I’m not a lawyer, but I thought owning the trademark was designed to prevent confusion or hijacking. It doesn’t actually give you the right to prevent someone from ever using the word. Unless the ads were trying to mislead the searcher into believing they were official MoveOn ads, Google has it wrong.

]]> By: Richard Ball http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34231 Richard Ball Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:31:37 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34231 I wonder if they've tried generic text like "move on" in the ad. ;-) You can buy any keywords you want (at least in the U.S.). You just can't use trademarked terms in the ad text. If that's the real story here, then this is just silly. I wonder if they’ve tried generic text like “move on” in the ad. ;-)

You can buy any keywords you want (at least in the U.S.). You just can’t use trademarked terms in the ad text. If that’s the real story here, then this is just silly.

]]> By: Craig Danuloff http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34219 Craig Danuloff Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:09:23 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34219 There is a loophole/flaw in the way Google enforces the trademark protection. You can use trademarked terms in the visible URL. We've had and lost this fight with Google on behalf of trademark owning clients. It makes no sense, but at least in the recent past it has been true. I've posted more details and an example ad I'm running right now to demonstrated at http://blogs.commerce360.com. There is a loophole/flaw in the way Google enforces the trademark protection. You can use trademarked terms in the visible URL. We’ve had and lost this fight with Google on behalf of trademark owning clients. It makes no sense, but at least in the recent past it has been true.

I’ve posted more details and an example ad I’m running right now to demonstrated at http://blogs.commerce360.com.

]]> By: Susan Collins MoveOn.Org Google Ad Solution | The Commerce360 Blog http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34217 Susan Collins MoveOn.Org Google Ad Solution | The Commerce360 Blog Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:04:35 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34217 [...] portion of the political and online marketing worlds are fired up about Google’s refusal to run ads from Republican Senator Susan Collins due to [...] [...] portion of the political and online marketing worlds are fired up about Google’s refusal to run ads from Republican Senator Susan Collins due to [...]

]]> By: Glen Harness http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-34209 Glen Harness Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:11:55 +0000 http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/google-rejects-campaign-ads.html#comment-34209 How is someone supposed to rebut a campaign ad without using the entity's name you want to rebut? This is MoveOn.org silencing its critics, not trademark infringement. Google is in the wrong here, and the more of this stuff they pull, the more they're going to lose users. How is someone supposed to rebut a campaign ad without using the entity’s name you want to rebut? This is MoveOn.org silencing its critics, not trademark infringement. Google is in the wrong here, and the more of this stuff they pull, the more they’re going to lose users.

]]>