New Developments in Keyword Advertising Jamie N. Nafziger Dorsey & Whitney LLP [email_address] December 10, 2010
How Do Search Engines Work? <ul><li>Web crawler software visits pages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Creates copy of visited pages ...
Keyword Advertising – What Is It? <ul><li>Keywords - words or phrases used to search in an Internet search engine </li></u...
 
Google in Germany <ul><li>Anzeigen </li></ul>
 
 
Anatomy of a Sponsored Ad Title Text Link
Keyword Advertising and Google <ul><li>In 2007-2009, Google’s AdWords program generated over $60 billion in revenue for Go...
Keyword Advertising – How Does It Work?  <ul><li>Advertisers choose geographic area of interest </li></ul><ul><li>Advertis...
 
<ul><li>Purchasing third-party trademarks as keywords allowed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>June 4, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><l...
<ul><li>Use of trademarks in ad text </li></ul><ul><ul><li>June 15, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allowed in U.S., U.K.,...
Google’s Keyword Policies By Jurisdiction <ul><li>Google will investigate all reasonable complaints regarding counterfeit ...
Microsoft’s Keyword Policies <ul><li>Search and ad serving for Yahoo! moved to Microsoft adCenter platform in the U.S. and...
Microsoft’s Keyword Policies <ul><li>Use of third-party TM in ads may be allowed if: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparative adv...
<ul><li>Federal district courts were split on keyword advertising that uses a third party’s brand  </li></ul><ul><li>Secon...
<ul><li>2 legal hurdles: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“Use” of the plaintiff’s mark “in commerce” in connection with the sale, di...
<ul><ul><li>Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc.  (E.D. Va. 2005) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Google “used” tradema...
April 2009 Rescuecom Decision <ul><li>Reversed 12(b)(6) dismissal by district court </li></ul><ul><li>Distinguished  1-800...
Impact of Second Circuit’s Decision <ul><li>Second Circuit moves to majority position on keywords </li></ul><ul><li>Remand...
Likelihood of Confusion <ul><li>In addition to &quot;use in commerce,&quot; successful Lanham Act claim also requires show...
Initial Interest Confusion <ul><li>Some courts adopt an “initial interest confusion” test (1 st  Cir., 3 rd  Cir., 7 th  C...
Likelihood of Confusion – Rulings <ul><li>Trademark in ad text </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Likelihood of confusion found </li></...
Rosetta Stone v. Google (E.D. Va. 2010) <ul><li>Summary judgment granted for Google </li></ul><ul><li>Direct infringement ...
Storus Corp. v. Aroa Mktg. Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2008) <ul><li>Competitors – sell money clips </li></ul><ul><li>Aroa purchased S...
Finance Express v. Nowcom (C.D. Cal. 2008) <ul><li>Competitors – sell software for auto dealers </li></ul><ul><li>Nowcom p...
Soilworks, LLC v. Midwest Ind. Supply, Inc. (D. Ariz. 2008) <ul><li>Competitors – sell soil erosion and dust control produ...
Designer Skin, LLC v. S&L Vitamins, Inc. (D. Ariz. 2008) <ul><li>S&L resells DS’s and DS’s competitors’ products on S&L’s ...
J.G. Wentworth v. Settlement Funding (E.D. Pa. 2007) <ul><li>Competitors – offer immediate cash payments in exchange for f...
Nominative Fair Use <ul><li>Owners of sponsored ads often sell products bearing the trademarks in their ads  </li></ul><ul...
 
Requirements of Fair Use Defense <ul><li>Three requirements: </li></ul><ul><li>product or service is not readily identifia...
Fair Use In Keyword Advertising <ul><li>Tiffany v. eBay (2 nd  Cir. 2010) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bench trial – judgment for...
ECJ Opinion <ul><li>3 French cases against Google </li></ul><ul><li>Use of third-party trademarks as keywords by advertise...
How Will Legal Uncertainty Be Resolved? <ul><li>American Blind & Wallpaper Factory  case was one of the highest profile su...
Twitter’s Promoted Tweets Program <ul><li>Twitter’s General Counsel interview at INTA in May 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Initia...
Practical Considerations in Light of Legal Uncertainty <ul><li>More likely to succeed if third party is using trademark in...
Protective Measures <ul><li>Insist that marketing partners give contractual undertakings to respect marks  </li></ul><ul><...
Questions? 4811-9341-6196
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

New Developments in Keyword Advertising

1,200 views

Published on

Update on

Published in: Business, Technology, Design
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,200
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

New Developments in Keyword Advertising

  1. 1. New Developments in Keyword Advertising Jamie N. Nafziger Dorsey & Whitney LLP [email_address] December 10, 2010
  2. 2. How Do Search Engines Work? <ul><li>Web crawler software visits pages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Creates copy of visited pages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifies hyperlinks on page and adds them to list </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How to prioritize visits to unvisited URLs </li></ul><ul><li>Search engine indexes pages </li></ul><ul><li>User search of index: organic results </li></ul><ul><li>Search engine optimization </li></ul><ul><li>Paid advertising </li></ul>
  3. 3. Keyword Advertising – What Is It? <ul><li>Keywords - words or phrases used to search in an Internet search engine </li></ul><ul><li>Keyword advertising - search engines selling keywords to advertisers who will be able to display text ads above or next to the “organic” search results triggered by those particular keywords </li></ul><ul><li>Sponsored Links – Google (changed to “Ads” in November 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>Sponsored sites – Microsoft’s Bing </li></ul>
  4. 5. Google in Germany <ul><li>Anzeigen </li></ul>
  5. 8. Anatomy of a Sponsored Ad Title Text Link
  6. 9. Keyword Advertising and Google <ul><li>In 2007-2009, Google’s AdWords program generated over $60 billion in revenue for Google </li></ul><ul><li>97% of Google’s revenue in 2008 and 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>AdWords works on a pay-per-click basis </li></ul><ul><li>When sponsored ad is clicked, Google earns a fee </li></ul>
  7. 10. Keyword Advertising – How Does It Work? <ul><li>Advertisers choose geographic area of interest </li></ul><ul><li>Advertisers may select particular keywords from a list that is automatically generated by Google (Keyword Tool) </li></ul><ul><li>Advertisers may generate their own keywords </li></ul><ul><li>Advertisers set monthly budget – budget impacts # of impressions </li></ul><ul><li>Advertisers bid on how much they will pay Google (cost – per-click) if a user clicks on one of their ads triggered by a search of the keyword selected – bid impacts rank </li></ul><ul><li>Advertisers pay per click through by users </li></ul>
  8. 12. <ul><li>Purchasing third-party trademarks as keywords allowed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>June 4, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Previously U.S., Canada, U.K., Ireland </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Now approx. 150 countries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google will take no action on complaints </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective 9/14/10: EU and EFTA regions – does not prevent selection of trademarks as keywords but will do limited investigation as to whether keyword combined with ad text is likely to cause confusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gives examples of ads that will be allowed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Purchasing third-party trademarks as keywords not allowed in nine jurisdictions </li></ul>Google’s Keyword Policies By Jurisdiction
  9. 13. <ul><li>Use of trademarks in ad text </li></ul><ul><ul><li>June 15, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allowed in U.S., U.K., Canada and Ireland if: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive or generic use – not ref TM owner </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Nominative use </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Resale – clear on landing page </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sale of components, replacement parts, compatible products – clear on landing page </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Informational site – non-competitive, informative – no sale of competitor’s goods or services </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Google’s Keyword Policies By Jurisdiction
  10. 14. Google’s Keyword Policies By Jurisdiction <ul><li>Google will investigate all reasonable complaints regarding counterfeit goods </li></ul><ul><li>AdSense for Domains trademark complaint </li></ul>
  11. 15. Microsoft’s Keyword Policies <ul><li>Search and ad serving for Yahoo! moved to Microsoft adCenter platform in the U.S. and Canada (Oct. 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual Property Guidelines more restrictive than Google’s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of third-party trademark as keyword may be allowed: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Informational site and principal offering not competitive goods or services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Using dictionary meaning of term and not competing with TM owner </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reseller whose website sells authentic goods or services distributed under the TM </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 16. Microsoft’s Keyword Policies <ul><li>Use of third-party TM in ads may be allowed if: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparative advertising rep. by independent third-party research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Must present TM in context of research cited in ad </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Must feature research clearly and prominently on landing page ad links to </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Rights of Publicity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Keywords, ads, landing pages disapproved if </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Inappropriate use of indiv.’s name, likeness, voice, personality for commercial purposes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Keyword, ad copy, or website content that exploits public figure or organization for commercial purposes </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 17. <ul><li>Federal district courts were split on keyword advertising that uses a third party’s brand </li></ul><ul><li>Second Circuit issued decision in Rescuecom v. Google case on April 3, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>First appellate court to rule on this issue directly </li></ul>U.S. Judicial Treatment of Keyword Advertising
  14. 18. <ul><li>2 legal hurdles: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“Use” of the plaintiff’s mark “in commerce” in connection with the sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Likelihood of confusion (initial interest confusion often enough) </li></ul></ul>Legal Requirements For Finding of Trademark Infringement
  15. 19. <ul><ul><li>Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc. (E.D. Va. 2005) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Google “used” trademarks to sell advertising and to link advertising to search results </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>800-JR Cigar, Inc. v. GoTo.com, Inc. (D.N.J. 2006) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Edina Realty, Inc. v. TheMLSonline.com (D. Minn. 2006) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2007) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hysitron Inc. v. MTS Systems Corp. (D. Minn. 2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc. (2 nd Cir. 2009) </li></ul></ul>“ Use In Commerce” Found
  16. 20. April 2009 Rescuecom Decision <ul><li>Reversed 12(b)(6) dismissal by district court </li></ul><ul><li>Distinguished 1-800 Contacts case </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Trademark vs. domain name </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No chance for advertiser to pick word or brand vs. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Keyword suggestion tool – suggesting trademarks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not “internal uses” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hints at problematic parts of Google’s program in terms of likelihood of confusion analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Placement of ads – top vs. side </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Title of ads – Sponsored Links </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lengthy appendix (dicta) – statutory analysis of §1127 “use in commerce” definition </li></ul></ul>
  17. 21. Impact of Second Circuit’s Decision <ul><li>Second Circuit moves to majority position on keywords </li></ul><ul><li>Remanded case to district court </li></ul><ul><li>Google’s Keyword Tool still suggests trademarks </li></ul><ul><li>Potentially high-stakes case for Google </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No use of trademark in ad – test case </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Rescuecom gave up case when revealed that it was buying keywords matching Best Buy’s GEEK SQUAD trademark </li></ul><ul><li>Left unanswered: Could Google change its program to avoid infringement liability? </li></ul><ul><li>Left unanswered: Can competitors buy each other’s trademarks as keywords without infringement liability? </li></ul>
  18. 22. Likelihood of Confusion <ul><li>In addition to &quot;use in commerce,&quot; successful Lanham Act claim also requires showing a likelihood of confusion </li></ul><ul><li>2005 study found that 62% of users of search engines didn’t know there was a difference between a sponsored search result and an “organic” search result. ( http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2005/PIP_Searchengine_users.pdf.pdf ) </li></ul><ul><li>2010 study found that 58% of users didn’t know the difference between sponsored and non-sponsored links or were not sure. (Prof. David Franklyn, University of San Francisco School of Law, Center for the Empirical Study of Trademarks) </li></ul>
  19. 23. Initial Interest Confusion <ul><li>Some courts adopt an “initial interest confusion” test (1 st Cir., 3 rd Cir., 7 th Cir., 9 th Cir., 10 th Cir., 11 th Cir.) </li></ul><ul><li>Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment (9 th Cir. 1999) </li></ul><ul><li>Was potential customer diverted from website, based on user’s belief that second site associated with one originally sought? </li></ul><ul><li>Criticized as unreliable substitute for traditional evidence of confusion and as underestimating consumers’ understanding of Internet </li></ul>
  20. 24. Likelihood of Confusion – Rulings <ul><li>Trademark in ad text </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Likelihood of confusion found </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>GEICO bench trial </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Storus SJ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mary Kay v. Weber – SJ on fair use defense denied; jury verdict </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NO likelihood of confusion found </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rosetta Stone v. Google – SJ granted [appeal pending] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Trademark as keyword only (not in ad text) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Likelihood of confusion found </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Soilworks SJ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Finance Express – prelim. inj. granted </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Morningware v. Hearthware – motion to dismiss denied </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Partners for Health and Home v. Yang – prelim. inj. granted </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NO likelihood of confusion found </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>GEICO bench trial </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>J.G. Wentworth motion to dismiss </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Designer Skin SJ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fair Isaac v. Experian (D. Minn.) – court decided after jury trial </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>College Network – affirmed jury verdict </li></ul></ul></ul>
  21. 25. Rosetta Stone v. Google (E.D. Va. 2010) <ul><li>Summary judgment granted for Google </li></ul><ul><li>Direct infringement </li></ul><ul><li>Contributory infringement </li></ul><ul><li>Functionality </li></ul><ul><li>Dilution </li></ul><ul><li>Major portions of briefs redacted </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple amicus briefs filed in appeal </li></ul><ul><li>Hearing not yet scheduled </li></ul>
  22. 26. Storus Corp. v. Aroa Mktg. Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2008) <ul><li>Competitors – sell money clips </li></ul><ul><li>Aroa purchased Storus’ trademark SMART MONEY CLIP as a keyword </li></ul><ul><li>Ad contained mark </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Smart Money Clip www.steinhausenonline.com Elegant Steinhausen accessories. Perfect to add to any collection </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SJ granted to Plaintiff on trademark infringement claim </li></ul>
  23. 27. Finance Express v. Nowcom (C.D. Cal. 2008) <ul><li>Competitors – sell software for auto dealers </li></ul><ul><li>Nowcom purchased Finance Express’ trademarks as keywords </li></ul><ul><li>Ad did not contain mark </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Manage Your Dealership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use Just One Software Program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Get a Free Trial of Dealer Desktop </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>www.nowcom .com </li></ul></ul><ul><li>URL in small font at bottom of ad not sufficient to prevent confusion </li></ul><ul><li>Preliminary injunction granted </li></ul>
  24. 28. Soilworks, LLC v. Midwest Ind. Supply, Inc. (D. Ariz. 2008) <ul><li>Competitors – sell soil erosion and dust control products </li></ul><ul><li>Soilworks purchased “soil sement” as keyword – Midwest’s mark is SOIL-SEMENT </li></ul><ul><li>Ad did not contain mark </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Soiltac ® Soil Stabilizer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Soil Stabilizer – Dust Control Agent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Used worldwide on any soil or site. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>www.soiltac.com </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SJ granted to Midwest on trademark infringement claim </li></ul>
  25. 29. Designer Skin, LLC v. S&L Vitamins, Inc. (D. Ariz. 2008) <ul><li>S&L resells DS’s and DS’s competitors’ products on S&L’s website </li></ul><ul><li>S&L bought DS’s trademarks as keywords </li></ul><ul><li>No survey – court concludes that only “naïve few” users could be confused </li></ul><ul><li>Interesting discussion of irrelevance of look of landing page </li></ul><ul><li>No “bait and switch” – no initial interest confusion </li></ul><ul><li>SJ granted for S&L on trademark infringement claim </li></ul>
  26. 30. J.G. Wentworth v. Settlement Funding (E.D. Pa. 2007) <ul><li>Competitors – offer immediate cash payments in exchange for future rights to payments </li></ul><ul><li>Settlement bought “JG Wentworth” as keyword </li></ul><ul><li>No use of mark in ad </li></ul><ul><li>Motion to dismiss complaint granted </li></ul>
  27. 31. Nominative Fair Use <ul><li>Owners of sponsored ads often sell products bearing the trademarks in their ads </li></ul><ul><li>Defense of fair use is commonly raised </li></ul><ul><li>Additional hurdle faced by plaintiffs </li></ul>
  28. 33. Requirements of Fair Use Defense <ul><li>Three requirements: </li></ul><ul><li>product or service is not readily identifiable without use of the trademark </li></ul><ul><li>only so much of the mark may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service </li></ul><ul><li>use must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing (9th Cir. 1991) </li></ul></ul>
  29. 34. Fair Use In Keyword Advertising <ul><li>Tiffany v. eBay (2 nd Cir. 2010) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bench trial – judgment for eBay </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Keyword advertising by eBay nominative fair use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No survey on likelihood of confusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis of keyword issue very brief </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>False advertising claim remanded – would have needed extrinsic evidence that ads likely to mislead – judgment entered for eBay </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Edina Realty, Inc. v. TheMLSOnline.com (D. Minn. 2006) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fair use defense not available even though defendant offered plaintiff’s real estate listings on its site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Could have purchased alternative, generic keywords instead </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Merck & Co. v. Mediplan Health Consulting (S.D.N.Y. 2006) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Purchase of Merck’s mark ZOCOR as keyword allowable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Defendants sold ZOCOR products on their sites </li></ul></ul>
  30. 35. ECJ Opinion <ul><li>3 French cases against Google </li></ul><ul><li>Use of third-party trademarks as keywords by advertisers may be TM infringement if “ normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users are unable to determine” if goods or services are linked to TM owner </li></ul><ul><li>Google does not use the mark in the course of trade </li></ul><ul><li>Use of third-party trademarks to promote imitations can constitute dilution by advertiser but not by Google </li></ul><ul><li>Whether Google can be protected by safe harbor immunity must be decided on a case-by-case basis – depends on whether neutral (technical, automatic and passive) or active </li></ul><ul><li>Many questions remain unanswered </li></ul>
  31. 36. How Will Legal Uncertainty Be Resolved? <ul><li>American Blind & Wallpaper Factory case was one of the highest profile suits </li></ul><ul><li>“ Baton” then passed to American Airlines v. Google , which settled in Summer 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>American Airlines v. Yahoo! Settled November 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Utah Trademark Protection Act passed in March 2007, creates an “Electronic Registration Mark” and prohibits use of registered mark as a keyword – repealed; Utah tried again and failed </li></ul><ul><li>Rosetta Stone v. Google – dismissed; appealed to 4 th Cir. Oct. 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Jurin v. Google – hearing on Google motion to dismiss Jan. 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>2 Class Actions – motions for class certification pending in E.D. Texas </li></ul><ul><li>Europe – interpretation of ECJ decision by national courts </li></ul>
  32. 37. Twitter’s Promoted Tweets Program <ul><li>Twitter’s General Counsel interview at INTA in May 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Initially limited launch (Best Buy, Bravo, Starbucks, etc.) in search </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only one ad per search result </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pay per impression </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Later launched in search through partners </li></ul><ul><li>Last – Instream Ads in user timeline (testing with HootSuite starting November 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>GC says will follow best practices for trademark policy </li></ul><ul><li>Promises “robust policies to protect brands and Twitter users” </li></ul><ul><li>Google including Promoted Tweets in Realtime Search Page </li></ul>
  33. 38. Practical Considerations in Light of Legal Uncertainty <ul><li>More likely to succeed if third party is using trademark in headings or text of sponsored ad without describing the trademark owner’s product and without offering it for sale </li></ul><ul><li>More likely to prevail in action against competitor than against reseller </li></ul><ul><li>Design surveys carefully </li></ul><ul><ul><li>GEICO v. Google </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Edina Realty v. TheMLSonline.com </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mary Kay, Inc. v. Weber </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Expand keyword monitoring beyond Google -- Twitter Promoted Tweets, YouTube tags, etc. </li></ul>
  34. 39. Protective Measures <ul><li>Insist that marketing partners give contractual undertakings to respect marks </li></ul><ul><li>Become highest keyword bidder for own marks </li></ul><ul><li>Track and monitor use of trademarks on web </li></ul><ul><li>Do unto others (avoid Rescuecom situation) </li></ul><ul><li>Use negative keywords </li></ul><ul><li>When infringing use discovered, complain to search engine and/or third-party user </li></ul><ul><li>Use search engines’ trademark complaint procedures </li></ul>
  35. 40. Questions? 4811-9341-6196

×