Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32
  1. #1
    Affiliate Manager Blair.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Warren, PA
    Posts
    292
    Google plans to stop limiting sales of trademarks in its popular keyword advertising program, a high-stakes gamble that could boost revenue but also create new legal problems for the company.

    See the entire article here:

    http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5190324.html
    Christopher Park
    Affiliate/Partnerships Manager
    Blair.com
    cjpark@blair.com
    (814)726-6074
    AIM: BLAIRAffiliates
    Twitter: BLAIRAffiliates

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    related story

    http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3337361


    "The suit alleges the defendants infringed on Pets Warehouse's (PW) trademarks by selling its name as a keyword to their paid placement advertisers. It also accuses them of unfair competition, trademark dilution, deceptive practices, and interference with prospective business advantage."

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Madrid
    Posts
    758
    Very interesting reads.

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    673
    PetsWarehouse likes to sue lots of people

    http://www.dynamoo.com/diary/pets_warehouse.htm

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    I think it is great news.

    If there are any wacko losers planning lawsuits to 'protect' their trademarks, then I hope they sue Google instead of the webistes doing the bidding.

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>PetsWarehouse likes to sue lots of people
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I am glad to read in the Google article that the judge had the good sense to kill Novaks's complaint against Google for not cowering to his demands to remove discussions of PetsWarehouse.com. Not sure how this will contribute to the long-term health of civil liberties but I'm happy to see anyone suing to end free-speech ground into turtle food. Too bad the defendants in Virginia didn't have the financial resources of Google. Instead of settling & forfeiting their constitutional rights to the likes this guy, they might have had the same success.

    Interested to see if they try to delete this thread.

    Wayne

  7. #7
    Affiliate Manager Blair.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Warren, PA
    Posts
    292
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jimbo2002:
    I think it is great news.

    If there are any wacko losers planning lawsuits to 'protect' their trademarks, then I hope they sue Google instead of the webistes doing the bidding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hmmm... I'd imagine any smart wacko loser would go after both.
    Christopher Park
    Affiliate/Partnerships Manager
    Blair.com
    cjpark@blair.com
    (814)726-6074
    AIM: BLAIRAffiliates
    Twitter: BLAIRAffiliates

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,269
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Novak had accused Google of refusing to take down certain discussions of PetsWarehouse.com on its Google Groups site. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    LOL@that, if you've read those pages you could see why he's desperate for them to disappear.

    I won't say anything else, he might sue me too - forum members are a popular target

  9. #9
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    270
    Great reads.

    Thanks. Brightened my day. There are people worse than Wife #3.



    CodeJockey.

  10. #10
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Googles first line to anyone threatening trademark lawsuit for PPCSE SEM will be to send suit or cease & desist papers to the keyword purchaser. If that keyword purchaser, seeking to monitize someone elses trademark, is a competitor or affiliate then the lawyers get to go after 2 parties. They will still sue Google or Overture ...plus the competitor and the affiliate.

    Nice to see the BHO's getting a spotlight on trademark infringements as triggers to stealing business from the competitors.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  11. #11
    Affiliate Manager PetsWarehouse.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2005
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    1,616
    Wayne,

    You need to read a little better, Google had one count of thirteen dismissed on juisdictional grounds, not merit.
    All other defendant's motions were lost.

    The case is now going forward.

    American Blind and wallpaper is sueing Google on the same grounds in New York.

    Bob also won an appeal in Alabama returning the Petswarehouse.com domain name.
    Bob Pets Warehouse
    Worlds Largest Pet Supply DataBase
    Join our Share-A-Sale Program [since 2003] Twitter



  12. #12
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    Some interesting reading there about petswarehouse, pets warehouse, and pets ware house.

  13. #13
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,269
    Yes, I thought Dynamoo's summary was very well done.

  14. #14
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Probably could have read this poorly written article better. It says the judge "denied several motions by plaintiffs to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction" which made little sense to me. The reason for the dismissal was not made clear.

    While I have no real opinion about the trademark aspects, I am a strong supporter of the right of free speach and believe that had the Virginia defendants the resources to go to trial, courts would have strongly upheld the their first amendment rights. The same rights all Americans enjoy, rights you and I are enjoying here, rights that millions of Americans fought and died for, rights we are supposedly fighting for now. I don't care about your friend's lawsuit "hobby" as he called it. It's the court's problem to decide the trademark issue. When it comes to a suit to limit first amendment free speech rights, then it's everyone's duty to act to protect this basic tenet of democracy from those who would deny it.

    Wayne

  15. #15
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,133
    I can see issues arising with competitors or non-affiliate businesses bidding on the trademark of another company. That makes perfect sense and it is a clear cut infringement. As to affiliate bidding, this is up to each invidivual merchant with most merchants currently allowing it.

  16. #16
    Animal Lover
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    oz
    Posts
    1,210
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>While I have no real opinion about the trademark aspects, I am a strong supporter of the right of free speach and believe that had the Virginia defendants the resources to go to trial, courts would have strongly upheld the their first amendment rights. The same rights all Americans enjoy, rights you and I are enjoying here, rights that millions of Americans fought and died for, rights we are supposedly fighting for now. I don't care about your friend's lawsuit "hobby" as he called it. It's the court's problem to decide the trademark issue. When it comes to a suit to limit first amendment free speech rights, then it's everyone's duty to act to protect this basic tenet of democracy from those who would deny it.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Amen to that.

    Oscar
    My DataFeed Scripts - php datafeed scripts for your site
    Shareasale datafeed scripts - to display Shareasale datafeeds
    Linkshare datafeed scripts - for multiple Linkshare merchants

  17. #17
    Affiliate Manager PetsWarehouse.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2005
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    1,616
    There is no issue about the First Amendment or quashing free speech.
    The speech in question is commercial false speech.
    One of the suits purpose is to curtail people from spreading vicious lies and is directed at making them responsible for saying things that are not true.

    The Internet chat rooms should not become a free-for-all for libelous comments.

    Moreover, lets leave it to the courts where these issues are best understood.

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The same rights all Americans enjoy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I should add: ..Rights peoples around the world have fought & died for. Democracy exists far beyond our own borders.

    Wayne

  19. #19
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Moreover, lets leave it to the courts where these issues are best understood. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    While I don't intend to debate the case with you, I've read the original post and have seen nothing that indicates it is libelous or not. The complaints may or may not have been 100% factual. Had the defendants been able to raise the needed funds to mount a defense, there would have been a ruling based on evidence. Unfortunately, the courts never had the opportunity and as such, justice was never served in my opinion, though you may feel otherwise. A ruling would have clearly defined what is and is not protected speech. We are all losers in this case.

    What we are left with is the impression that free speech is for those rich enough to beat back those who would take it away.

    As much as you might wish this subject only to be discussed in the courtrooms, we live in a free and open society where controversial topics are discussed in public on public forums. This is the way it works in America and I like it that way. So sue me.

    Wayne

  20. #20
    Animal Lover
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    oz
    Posts
    1,210
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Internet chat rooms should not become a free-for-all for libelous comments <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    There is a fine line between libel and an opinion. If I don't like the service provided by a particular restaurant and tell my friends about it does that constitute libel? I can't understand the logic.

    Oscar
    My DataFeed Scripts - php datafeed scripts for your site
    Shareasale datafeed scripts - to display Shareasale datafeeds
    Linkshare datafeed scripts - for multiple Linkshare merchants

  21. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    144
    Ah, all those affiliate merchants that forbade their affiliates from bidding on their trademark keywords now get to go head to head against their competitors - and their only recourse is to get out their wallets and take them to court

    I'm just waiting for the first email begging me to bid on "their" keywords again.

    Shortsighted fools.

  22. #22
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    9,944
    Yep, they better let the affiliates do the bidding and darned fast, too.
    Comments are opinion unless otherwise noted. Remember, pillage first. Then burn. Half of all people in the world have IQs under 100. You best learn to trust ol' SSanf!

  23. #23
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There is a fine line between libel and an opinion. If I don't like the service provided by a particular restaurant and tell my friends about it does that constitute libel? I can't understand the logic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I believe if spoken, it would be slander, but only if you follow the precept that any disparaging comment is untrue and worthy of a lawsuit.

    Practically speaking, it doesn't really appear to be such a fine line between libel and opinion. The world of criticism would not exist if it was. The restaurant critic of the NY Times is perfectly secure in her ability to write that the food was fair at best, the salad was wilted, the soup cold and the entree, while edible, arrived 45 minutes too late and the waiter tacked on an additional 15% gratuity without advance notice.

    While the restaurant owner may disagree with this scathing review and it could cost him many hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in lost sales, the norm is that the reviewer is not sued for libel. Similarly, Consumer Reports issues many disparaging evaluations for all sorts of bad products, movie reviewers pan high-budget trash, the Better Business Bureau will declare a business's practices as unsatisfactory. All can kill or seriously hurt a business or project and all are usually free of fear of retaliatory lawsuits. Businesses, artists & services generally see public airings of its shortcomings as one of the costs of doing business, more enlightened ones see it as a wake-up call that there are improvements to be made. Relatively few take it to the courts.

    Go ahead and tell your friends that the food was putrid. It's a sad day when you need to be afraid to give an honest opinion for fear of being hit with a cry-baby lawsuit. If the line was really as fine as some would have you believe, half the regulars here would be getting sued every day for telling the truth about the spyware, scumware, parasites & the merchants and networks that promote them.

    Wayne

  24. #24
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    594
    The fact that Google is moving twards a stance of relavancy is a good thing in the long run. I want my results to be indicitive of the term i am searching for, regardless if it is a trademark or not. Overture has always had this stance and legally, they are on higher ground than Google. Google will back track, but if they allow the TM fights to go on outside their company, and claim they deliver relavent results, they can and will be legally clear.

  25. #25
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    594
    I might add that this is necessary in moving toward an IPO. Less internal resources necessary.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Featured: Trademark poachers | Google
    By PetsWarehouse.com in forum Merchant Best Practices Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 24th, 2011, 12:26 AM
  2. Google to Update to U.S. ad text trademark policy
    By Eric Ewe in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2009, 02:24 PM
  3. Google AdWords' trademark policies
    By markwelch in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 10th, 2006, 02:46 PM
  4. Google AdWords' trademark policies
    By markwelch in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 20th, 2006, 11:43 PM
  5. Guy Plans to Sue Google re Affiliate Marketing
    By Potent Mix in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2002, 09:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •