Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

ACCC versus Google

I felt the Alpha Dog Training and Just 4x4 magazine example were quite weak, these brands just put a trademark block on competitors bidding?

This could also be a case of the court not been too savvy into legal areas around online.

I can see Google appealing this decision imo, they have the money they would have the best lawyers imo.
 
James said:
This could also be a case of the court not been too savvy into legal areas around online.
Click to expand...

I don't think so James. This was a full Federal Court Appeal by the ACCC against the original decision by one Judge of the Federal Court.

Hearing the appeal were Federal Court Chief Justice Patrick Keane, Justice Peter Jacobson and Justice Bruce Lander. I would say that they are fairly savvy! ;)

ITNews covers the story well, and has a copy of the ruling: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/295865,google-held-liable-for-misleading-ads.aspx

James said:
I can see Google appealing this decision imo, they have the money they would have the best lawyers imo.
Click to expand...

Google may well decide to go to the High Court.

The irony is that Google's lawyers ultimately get funded by Adwords customers - and the ACCC lawyers gets funded by taxpayers. And most Aussie Adwords customers
would be taxpayers as well! It's almost a no win situation! :p
.
 
domainlover said:
Agree with Neddy, James did you read the case ??
Click to expand...

Yes I did read the article, but the thing is the negligence is mainly caused by the advertiser who is creating the ad on Adwords, not Google for offering the system for Advertisers to use as a push system. But I do agree some fault lies on the part of the people approving the creative but when you have 1000s of creative a day to push out things can get missed and this i where the problems happen.

If the businesses who have put in the complaints in regards to people bidding on their business names and getting driven to a competitors product then that specific advertiser should have a trademark block on their terms so competitors are stopped from bidding or using the keyword in the creative, I understand people look for loop holes in trademark blocks all day and will drive people to non related sites, I mean look at the AdWords arbitration days, not that I was involved in this specific methods or would I advise too.

But I do agree with Ned the money will just come from businesses who invest into AdWords and other products Google offers.

Also more training needs to be done for businesses who are trying to look for these loop holes.
 
If these guys are not savvy what hope do we have !
Federal Court Chief Justice Patrick Keane, Justice Peter Jacobson and Justice Bruce Lander.
 
James said:
Yes I did read the article, but the thing is the negligence is mainly caused by the advertiser who is creating the ad on Adwords, not Google for offering the system for Advertisers to use as a push system. But I do agree some fault lies on the part of the people approving the creative but when you have 1000s of creative a day to push out things can get missed and this i where the problems happen.
Click to expand...

It is Google system, they are the main beneficiary and they are responsible for policing it in my view. If they allow anything they need to wear the consequences of that in my view (occasional lawsuits). If I drop something at a supermarket then 10 minutes later someone comes through and breaks their leg on the spill the supermarket is going to get sued. They can't expect to party and have no hangover. If they miss things occasionally then they'll probably get claims occasionally, like most big businesses.

James said:
If the businesses who have put in the complaints in regards to people bidding on their business names and getting driven to a competitors product then that specific advertiser should have a trademark block on their terms so competitors are stopped from bidding or using the keyword in the creative, I understand people look for loop holes in trademark blocks all day and will drive people to non related sites, I mean look at the AdWords arbitration days, not that I was involved in this specific methods or would I advise too.
Click to expand...

It isn't up to trademark holders to jump through hoops with Google in my view. Google has a system for complaints but that means very little I think.
 
Last edited:
it is an interesting case, particularly the judgment at first instance.

I am yet to read the Full Court judgment but either way it will be an important decision, particularly in this area where there is not much case law
 
So I can't work out what this means...

Does this mean that ads won't be able to be shown on terms like "Toyota Cars" or will it mean that advertisers won't be able to have the term "Toyota" in their ads?

Also where does it end? Will Google soon be getting in trouble for ranking any site that isn't a Toyota owned site within their organic rankings...

I tend to think brands should be able to protect their trademarks but I don't think it should be done at the expense of the competition that drives capitalism, ie if someone who started out looking for a Toyota ends up buying a Kia - that's not Google's fault.
 
Chris.C said:
Also where does it end? Will Google soon be getting in trouble for ranking any site that isn't a Toyota owned site within their organic rankings...
Click to expand...

I think it ends where it isn't obviously misleading, eg having Honda.com.au as the heading to lead to another site. There is no grey here in my view.
 
Would also be interesting to see how the court defines "Organic" listings and "Paid" listings for future cases, I have worked in Legal SEO in the past and some of the law makers in this space say 4 years ago were not too up to date in this area, I would wonder how they would treat a case against say an affiliate selling a product and ranking for a term vs. a product owner who complains?

I know a lot of education has taken place over the last 4 years, I too have personally trained many in the legal space around search.
 
snoopy said:
I think it ends where it isn't obviously misleading, eg having Honda.com.au as the heading to lead to another site. There is no grey here in my view.
Click to expand...

Agreed, not that it was a massive issue for us but Scoopon, Spreets and Groupon were all running Adword campaigns with "Voucher com au" and "Voucher.com.au" in the titles.

I just took screenshots and emailed Google who made changes within 48 hours to prevent people piggy backing... While it might not have been costing me much money it can/does affect your word of mouth and let's others play with your reputation.

T
 

GOOGLE is poised to launch a High Court challenge to a Federal Court finding that it engaged in false and misleading advertising, fearing the decision could have global implications for the search advertising market, worth tens of billions of dollars.
 
Timmy said:
Agreed, not that it was a massive issue for us but Scoopon, Spreets and Groupon were all running Adword campaigns with "Voucher com au" and "Voucher.com.au" in the titles.

I just took screenshots and emailed Google who made changes within 48 hours to prevent people piggy backing... While it might not have been costing me much money it can/does affect your word of mouth and let's others play with your reputation.

T
Click to expand...

Thing is this happens daily in some of the verticals we deal in, people will always look for loop holes to catch brand traffic via PPC as it is such a low CPC, especially competitors, their are also many tactics people use.

It is a daily fight for many legitimate brands in the AU market.
 
Chris.C said:
So I can't work out what this means...

Does this mean that ads won't be able to be shown on terms like "Toyota Cars" or will it mean that advertisers won't be able to have the term "Toyota" in their ads?

Also where does it end? Will Google soon be getting in trouble for ranking any site that isn't a Toyota owned site within their organic rankings...

I tend to think brands should be able to protect their trademarks but I don't think it should be done at the expense of the competition that drives capitalism, ie if someone who started out looking for a Toyota ends up buying a Kia - that's not Google's fault.
Click to expand...

Well actually the example you quoted is apt. Toyota have put a ban across Australian adwords customers from using the word 'toyota' in their campaigns.

IMO this sucks. My company sells Toyotas (whether Toyota like it or not) but we struggle to advertise this fact on Google due to this block.

This doesn't happen in the UK or US where Google has actually stood up to TM holders and said that, regardless of the legitimacy of the TM, advertisers should be able to trigger ads using the words if they want.

Isn't this akin to a newspaper banning an ad for a Toyota dealership unless they omit the word Toyota from the copy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Community sponsors

Domain Parking Manager

AddMe Reputation Management

Digital Marketing Experts

Catch Expired Domains

Web Hosting

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 197 (members: 0, guests: 197)

Trending content

Forum statistics

Threads
11,107
Messages
92,090
Members
2,394
Latest member
Spacemo

Latest posts

Share this page

Top