

Google loses on appeal in adwords trademark suit - jacquesm
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/google-loses-on-appeal-will-face-adwords-trademark-suit.ars

======
axod
This worries me. If someone searches for "ipod", why shouldn't the zune be
allowed to advertise on the results page?

It should be completely up to Google how they want to monetize that results
page, and which adverts they want to display there. Not up to a judge working
from antiquated trademark law.

What's more, it's useful for the user. It's nice to see related things that
might be of interest.

Here's the analogy:

    
    
      * Man goes into shop
      * Man asks sales assistant "Where are the iPods?"
      * Sales assistant responds "Aisle 9"
      * Man walks to aisle 9, and sees not only iPods, but various other mp3 players.

~~~
cduan
Note that the opinion considers this exact analogy, on page 13. The question
in this case is whether Google's product placements on search result pages
cause "consumer confusion." The distinction between this case and the shop is
that, with product placement, according to the court, everyone knows what's
going on, so there is no "consumer confusion." In contrast, does everyone know
that a Google ad resulting from a search may be unrelated to the search? Maybe
we HN readers do, but the question is whether the "average consumer" would.

Nevertheless, the court did not go nearly so far as the above commenter
suggested. All it said was that Google's product placements were potentially
more confusing than the prior 1-800 case. The product placements might not be
confusing nonetheless.

------
soundsop
I find the title, which is original, a bit misleading. Google did not lose on
appeal, instead a case was re-instated. An earlier judgment was vacated by the
Second Circuit US Court of Appeals due to a misapplied precedent by a lower
court. A trial will now proceed.

