It may seem that way at first, but quite honestly, some voices they do CAN damage your ability to speak/sing/etc. Under those circumstances it seems completely reasonable to pay someone more for taking a risk with their primary method of generating income.
Here we go again. Instead of apologizing for your mistake and removing the advertising you are hiding behind a google loophole to justify the use of our trademark. If you really did not intend to deceive the searcher than you should have never used our trademark term to begin with.
Here we go again. Instead of apologizing for thier mistake and removing the advertising they are hiding behind a google loophole to justify the use of our trademark. If they really did not intend to deceive the searcher than they should have never used our trademarked term to begin with.
Not saying you did, just that the journalist has failed to meet minimum standards.
On the other hand, the problem could have been resolved with a phone call - from your lawyer, if necessary. Immediately making a blog post out of it on your end wasn't the most scrupulous thing to do either.
It also sounds like the problem arose from an innocent mistake on their end. Google doesn't warn against this when pushing their keyword insertion feature. It's on the user to be responsible, but Google could do a far better job on documentation.
The difference is they are not positioning themselves as Ebay. In the MeetingBurner example they do not say "Considering MeetingBurner?" positioning us as a separate platform. Theres is MeetingBurner - Feature rich web meeting software with the underlying link to GTM.
