AXA sues Google over AdWords 366
Da Fokka writes "Insurance company AXA is suing Google in a french court because a search for 'AXA' results in links to their competitors. A similar claim was initially awarded but successfully appealed by Google. If this claim is successful, this could be quite a setback for Google's business model."
Seems they may loose this one (Score:5, Insightful)
The last appeal (better described in an alternate story [weblogsinc.com] ) was overturned because all of the words involved were dictionary words, and that it was unrealistic to expect a trademark search for every AdWords sale.
However, there is no doubt that AXA isn't found in most dictionaries, certainly not English or French - so it would seem they actually have a good chance of loosing this lawsuit.
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:5, Informative)
What really bugs me is that AXA did not pay Google to be listed. AXA can easily deny, via robots.txt, google's ability to visit their site. AXA is getting tons of free publicity via exposure on google. What right does it have to deny clearly demarcated ads on the very same site?
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the story you link mentions both terms though, "AXA" as well as "Direct Assurance" - I think it's still a decent chance they'll loose on the basis of AXA not being a word (except in the Ebonics sense as pointed out [slashdot.org] below).
Re:Seems they may lose this one (Score:5, Interesting)
Google posts paid advertising links (on the sides and above normal search results) always using a different background color, and specifically noting that those results are "sponsored links".
The fact that Google specifically separates sponsored links from it's normal search results is one of the reasons why Google has as high a popularity as it does.
About this lawsuit The AXA company is suing Google for selling both the trademarked term, "Direct Assurance" and the companies non-dictionary name, "AXA".
Google sold the non-dictionary term AXA to competitors of AXA. This has nothing to do with standard search results, and everything to do with advertising. If AXA were a dictionary word in English or French then there's a decent chance that Google would win the case (like the last case).
While I personally feel there is no validity to a lawsuit over selling a trademarked term made of 'dictionary' words, I see potential for liability where you are selling terms that are not otherwise found in the dictionary.
Re:Seems they may lose this one (Score:3, Interesting)
That is a ridiculous comment. You might as well say the letters A and X are taught in many primary schools therefore they should be available to anyone who wants to pay a search engine for them.
oh no! we'll actually have to compete with somebody... but I wanted my monopoly
Yes, see how worked up the Slashbots get
Re:Seems they may lose this one (Score:3, Informative)
It's reasonable to assume that use of the words "direct assurance" would be naturally constructed by anyone who sells an assurance product directly to customers (as opposed to exclusively over broker networks). This is conterpointed to a famous US trademark, "Built Ford Tough". Here it's not reasonable to assume Chevrolet would naturally contruct this phrase about their automobiles.
My original assertion (first post) - I thin
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless there has been a quick change by Google, my opinion is that AXA is FoS!
Having the words "insurance" or "assurance" anywhere in one's search should trigger any insurance companies ads.
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, there has been a quick change by Google. However, I don't believe that the US google service was in question.
Adwords is different for each [google.com] region [google.fr].
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:3, Informative)
I actually did the original search fron google.ca.
I just tried it fron google.fr and, again, all the top ten are AXA Insurance sites (including the Canadian one, which I didn't notice in the
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no idea what French or EU law might add to this issue, but from the way trademark law generally works -- what is illegal about allowing people to type a trademark into a field and showing them ads based on that? I don't see how there's any infringement. Trademarks aren't magic
FYI: scrabble (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:5, Interesting)
What is happening here is that a competitor is "buying" an advert imprint on Google when the word "axa" is in the search criteria. Its pretty much the same thing as a billboard saying "Get your Coca Cola here" with an arrow down to a Pepsi fridge, or a table with your home-made lemonade.
This is, in fact, exactly what trademark laws are meant to prevent: the abuse of your good name by competitors, detractors and freeloaders.
Trademarks are, in fact, magic words (or phrases) that can't be used in many ways without permission. You can talk about Pepsi, refer to Pepsi, satirize Pepsi, but you can't use the name Pepsi to advertise your business or product, or claim to be Pepsi-compliant or Pepsi-approved, or basically abuse the (presumably) good reputation of Pepsi to bring gain to yourself or harm to the trademark holder.
What is being described here is a despicable business practice, and does not deserve the hand of support its getting from Slashdot. Trademarks and branding are important tools for product differentiation in mature markets, which is why they are strongly protected in capatalist economies.
That said, the guilty parties here are those that register trademarks (to which they have no right) as AdWords; not Google. This court action is comparable to holding a newspaper responsible because an advertiser illegally used a trademark, or holding a supermarket responsible for the illegal use of a trademark on its community advertising board.
The correct solution is to apply existing laws to a "new" domain. Google should, on request from someone who can offer prima facae proof that they are the legal trademark holder, supply the full contact details of all parties who have either currently or previously registered AdWords for that trademark. The trademark holder can then go after the infringer(s) directly. It should not be possible to request or get an injunction to force Google to remove the AdWord, for the legal reasons given below.
Unfortunately many countries are applying their only flavours of national and international law to the problem. This becomes particularly complicated in the case of trademarks, which typically are national in extent (although many countries have specific policies for "global" or "well known" international brands), and are also limited to a single domain.
Thus a single country could have two registered trademarks "XYZ", one for a soft drink and another for a range of security doors. Another country could also have a trademark "XYZ" for a soft drink, that is in no way related to the "XYZ" of the first country. This happens frequently, and must be absolute hell for companies like Google.
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways, all Google's ad was doing was suggesting alternatives, not misrepresenting them as the trademark owner. Saying "Yeah, I know you want that company, but have you considered this other company?" Nothing illegal because there's no misrepresentation. (Not inherently, that would depend on if the company in the ad pretended to be AXA, not simply that they wanted to be listed as an alternative.)
Had they silently redirected your request from Coke to Pepsi, bringing the wrong beverage, that would be a trademark violation.
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:4, Insightful)
No, not at all.
If you clicked on a link claiming to lead to this AXA insurance company, but instead was taken to the website of AXA's competitor, then your analogy would be appropriate.
This is however NOT what's happening here.
1. You search for "AXA", and get AXA's website as a search result.
2. Next to the list of search results, you ALSO get an ad from a company in the same line of business, that does NOT claim to be affiliated with AXA in any way, and it's clearly separated from the search results, preceded by a text saying "Sponsored link".
Your analogy is wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:4, Interesting)
While what you have said about trademarks is true, what has all of that got to do with Google? Google is a search engine, it is a privately published directory that is publicly accessible. At the end of the day, it is just like a magazine.
For example, pick up a PC magazine and you'll find that there are instances where there are articles published about product X and right on the next page is a full page advert for product X's competitor. Just like how you might find an Epson advert right after an article on HP printers.
Yet i don't see companies suing over the very standard practice of placing ad's based on a publications editorial calender.
Clearly it's the same thing no? You may argue that in this case users specifically searched for AXA and got to see their competitors also, but isn't the case the same when someone purposely flips the page to look at an article about HP printers and sees an Epson Ad beside it?
Whats happening here is not somebody telling you to get Coca-Cola out of a Pepsi ice box, but rather more like Pepsi paying for a billboard right next to every Coca-Cola billboard. Ironic? Maybe, but definitely not wrong.
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:2)
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:2)
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:3, Funny)
It's.
You loose (sic).
Obvious question.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Obvious question.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why can't they just sue the company who's purchasing the ad, instead of suing Google?
This is a common problem, and I'm sure the source of most of Google's legal threats.
Once Google is informed that an AdWord violates a trademark (or whatever), they become liable to prosecution. The way Google usually responds is by immediately pulling the ad.
I can't imagine why Google wouldn't pull the ad, the money they make on them can't be worth the legal battle.
Also, Google has deep pockets, and there are plenty of litigious assholes out there...
Obvious Answer (Score:3)
1) Google has more money.
2) Google is an easy target.
3) Suing Google garners more publicity.
Your question makes the assumption that litigants/claiments are being wholly reasonable in their intent to have their grievances redressed and dont mereley want payola, regardless of the damadge it does to the information industry.
.
Leave it to a French Court (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Leave it to a French Court (Score:5, Insightful)
A better analogy is that you opened the phone book's white pages to look up McDonald's, and saw a Burger King ad right next to the McDonald's listing.
In the Yellow Pages, a commercial directory, you clearly expect to find businesses advertised by category. In the White Pages, customers are listed by name instead. AXA is trying to say that Google should limit itself to being a white pages index of the web, which is rubbish.
Re:Leave it to a French Court (Score:5, Insightful)
AXA should be suing their competitor, not Google. What their competitor did is tantamount to hanging an advertisement for their business under AXA's streetside sign.
Better analogy yet (Score:4, Insightful)
I've RTFA but frankly, there's not much information in there. Still, I guess that the reason why Axa sued is that the ad links mentioned the brand name "AXA". So maybe the proper analogy would be that you opened the white pages to look for McDonald's and see an ad for "McDonald's something" with the address and phone# of a BK.
Still not sure that this would justify a lawsuit but at least it's not that clear-cut.
Ok smartypants.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ok smartypants.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ok smartypants.. (Score:2)
There are over 200 countries, and each of them have an office of trademarks. Google has servers in ~50 of these countries - but Adwords is different for each [google.com] region [google.fr].
Hey now.. (Score:3, Funny)
People sue people.
The proper term is.... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't like this precedent... (Score:5, Interesting)
Worse for Google is that an insurance company is going to have lots of money and can easily afford to mount a very strong case against them. Hopefully, Google will have some luck, but it sounds like the similar case won't stand to help them much.
-N
Suing the Rich (Score:2)
Re:I don't like this precedent... (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is crucial. Google makes money directly from the sale of Axa's trademarked keyword. Google makes no money from the search itself. They've been sued over search results before, and won every single time, precisely because the search results are fair.
If Google had been asked to cease associating Axa's trademark with Axa's competitor, and refused, that may well constitute trademark violation. Frankly, I'm
Re:I don't like this precedent... (Score:3, Interesting)
-N
Responsibility? (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's primary purpose is INFORMATION, not the aforementioned advertisement.
If I'm looking for something to purchase, I'm generally more concerned with price & availability than who I buy FROM. It's in this area that Google shines, offering a plethora of various places to buy/rent from.
I would think this is an excellent opportunity for Google to make the distinction between their ACTUAL business plan and their PERCIEVED business plan.
Think about it, just because you've coined some obscure acronym for yourself or your business, does that mean it's Google's responsibility to insure that people find you during their search? Wow, nice way to shrink that ad budget.
Re:Responsibility? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you've got this wrong. They are suing because Google is selling their name as an Adword, not that their competitor comes up in the search portion of the page. It seems like there could be a good case that the competitor (and Google) is making money by trading on their good name. I'm not saying that I agree, but I don't think it is an open-and-shut case, especially when the name isn't a common english or french word.
Re:Responsibility? (Score:2, Informative)
Google is a business, and that means that it's primary purpose is to make money so that the business can continue to exist.The fact that Google provides very accurate search results is what makes it so attractive to advertisers.
Their "actual" business plan is to make a ton of money. Period.
Re:Responsibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely not. Google is a profit-seeking company, and as a commercial entity Google's primary purpose is the advert, not the information. The information is the lure to get you to see the advert.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Responsibility? (Score:2)
Re:Responsibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Responsibility? (Score:2, Insightful)
But this isn't about people searching for "insurance", with links to a variety of insurance companies' websites being returned.
This is about people searching for "AXA", a specific insurance company, with links to a variety of insurance companies' websites being returned.
"just because you
Re:Responsibility? (Score:2)
Look at it this way: say I am running an anti-Limbaugh effort, because I don't like the guy. Now let's suppose that I use the terms rush and limbaugh (check my
Re:Responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
Being that these results are generated by Google, it's Google's responsibility to make sure that none of their sponsors are abusing other companies' trademarks.
Re:Responsibility? (Score:2)
This reminds me... (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing good can come of this sort of lawsuit. Google and other search engines should be free to have their results the way the Internet says.
The Scientology nuts are complaining that a search for "scientology" also results in anti-scientology sites. Should they be awarded damages too?
I don't think so.
Re:This reminds me... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think so.
True. However, if somebody paid Google to put an anti-Scientology site higher up on the list, this is no longer a matter of neutral search results, but a wilful use of a trademarked name. This isn't about searching, but about commercial profit out of someone else's trademark.
Basis of the Suit (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Basis of the Suit (Score:2)
Re:Basis of the Suit (Score:2)
Screenshot of Google Page showing Adverts (Score:2)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/deeppurple/GoogleA
Showing non-AXA sites using the AXA trademark illegally. I don't know if Google are registered in the UK though which might explain why Google France is getting sued.
Google aren't the ones to sue. They are the ones to subpoena to get the advertisers' information, and then sue the advertisers for misuse of a trademark.
Linux sues MSN Search..... (Score:2, Insightful)
"If this claim is successful, this could be quite a setback for Microsoft's business model."
Nice consistent unbiased reporting there, guys.
Next up... (Score:5, Funny)
"Search engine company Google is suing themselves"
"If you Google on 'A9', you get a listing for one of our competitors," said a company spokesperson. "It's an outrage!"
what about the yellow pages (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what about the yellow pages (Score:2, Insightful)
It's better than the Wookie Defense.
Re:what about the yellow pages (Score:2, Insightful)
To put it another way, your analogy would be valid if AXA was suing for being listed next to a competitor when someone searches for life insurance. Alternately, you'd also be right if i could take out an ad in the white pages, and list my service under a competitor's registered
Bah, this is nuts. (Score:5, Interesting)
A quick search for 'Linux' [google.ca] brings up the following #1 sponsored link:
Linux News
Why is Windows cheaper than Linux?
Get all the facts Now!
www.microsoft.ca/getthefacts
So can Linus sue now? Seriously, I hope the courts don't rule against Google. It's not like the nasty ads that were being placed over other ads on company websites, it's just a sponsored link.
Re:Bah, this is nuts. (Score:2)
Re:Bah, this is nuts. (Score:2)
Better yet (Score:2)
Sue Amazon! (Score:5, Insightful)
isn't it perfectly legal.. (Score:2, Interesting)
What happens if google just removed any and all references to AXA on the web?
They could damage any global corp, and destroy any web business that wasn't already a name (amazon).
This is their scary power, scary power indeed.
Country oriented (Score:3, Interesting)
In the interests of full disclosure: I am an AXA Australia shareholder.
I searched on Google... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I searched on Google... (Score:2)
Heh. Not meant as a flame just as a silly joke - my brain is starting to melt from my study!
Adwords could use an overhaul (Score:2)
They don't have a case... and they know it (Score:5, Insightful)
If "AXA" wins, this means that using its name is forbidden, unless the company gives its approval beforehand. This imposes an undue restriction on freedom of speech, since Google is certainly not the only forum in which AXA is discussed and/or searched. Will this company sue, let's say, every newspapers or forums that discuss insurance companies and/or policies? Unlikely.
A few years ago, AXA may have argue its case by saying that it was 'undue competition', since France had laws prohibiting comparative commercials (Product A is better than product B because of...). But this is not the case anymore and comparative commercials are now legal in France.
Google may also argue that AdWords do not 'target' AXA, since -- AFAIK -- they are generated automatically. AXA is an insurance company (this is public knowledge). Therefore, a Google search on, say 'life insurance' would return pretty much the same AdWords results.
Therefore, I think AXA does not have a case. I also believe they know it, but that some over-zealous jerk in its Legal Dept decided to press the case anyway, just to make a point. They are just throwing good money out the window.
This may seem surprising, but French courts have proven in the past to be remarkably reasonable when it came to the Internet (Yahoo! 'nazi' case aside) and the previous decision is a case in point, since AXA lost it.
I fully expect Google to fight this all the way to the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation), if need be. And I expect them to win.
Just my 0.02 Euros...
Re:They don't have a case... and they know it (Score:2)
Somebody else brought up a neat example: Amazon's "people who bought this book also bought..." But that doesn't forcibly redirect attention to the other products. No, I think probably the most comparable example would be like if you burger ki
Re:They don't have a case... and they know it (Score:3, Insightful)
It's slightly more complicated. The problem with Google's ads (as explained by Playboy's lawyer in this article [theage.com.au]) is that they confuse t
Re:They don't have a case... and they know it (Score:2)
AXA should be suing the company that made the ad. Except that wouldn't get much publicity.
No impact to business model (Score:2)
All this means that the competitors of Axa, who are now buying the keyword "Axa", would have to buy some other keyword likely to be used when searching for insurance / financial advisor services.
This happened to us, but you don't need to sue (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This happened to us, but you don't need to sue (Score:2)
There are few things worse than a company that whines because they expect their customers to be handed to them
Re:This happened to us, but you don't need to sue (Score:3, Insightful)
When people search for your competitors products, they don't want to see your ads.
Perhaps you should 1) work on improving your own image, so people would actually search for you, or 2) shut the hell up.
Few things are worse than a company that acts immorally then excuses it as "that's business"
Re:This happened to us, but you don't need to sue (Score:2)
Re:This happened to us, but you don't need to sue (Score:2)
And the former is only legal in countries where comparitive advertising is legal too.
For example, if I ran a brewery "A", and my adword used brewery B's name in a non-comparative sense, that would be illegal, it would be misuse of a trademark (assuming B had trademarked their name, of course!), misleading to the consumer and a lot lot more. In the UK you'd probably end up being kicked about by Trading Standa
Re:This happened to us, but you don't need to sue (Score:2)
Google's Fault (Score:2)
Try doing a search for "American Express" and see what ads come up on Google.
ad already pulled (Score:2)
Search engine doing what it should... (Score:3, Insightful)
Google isnt the only one. (Score:2, Interesting)
Even better...news results! (Score:2)
"AXA sues Google over AdWords - Slashdot - 35 minutes ago"
Hello? Yellow Pages?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are companies afraid of competition? Because it makes them work a little bit harder? Shesh. Instead of suing Google who about count this as a blessing (aka free advertising) and get your marketing people to figure out away to capture the attention of people who when given a choice would want to choose AXA?
Vote with your wallets. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm fed up with companies trying to assert things that vaguely might belong to them. IMO you don't have rights to people not using your name. I've seen plenty of comparison adverts in the UK for cars, and that's perfectly legal.
What's their big problem anyway? I search for Axa because I want Axa and get some results for someone else? Well, maybe the "someone else" does it better and I might discover that? That, is what we in the free world call co
Looks like we have a new candidate ... (Score:2, Funny)
Another plaintiff (Score:2)
Google holds no responsibility to the public (Score:3, Insightful)
We have a similar issue (Score:2)
One day, a Dutch
PATHETIC!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Are the folks at Axa planning on filing suit against these other search engines as well? I think google gave them an excellent spot at the top of their search food chain
Google's search engine is too good (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If google loses in court (Score:4, Insightful)
Why wait until they lose? yank their cord now and give them a sense of reality.
Who says google has to list anybody?
Re:International law vs. culture (Score:2)
Remember, it wasn't France who came up with "Freedom Fries". Do you know how bad the US looked after that? hehehe probably not :)
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:2)
That's the case in the US, jurisdiction==place where viewed. I imagine any host is bound to the sum of the laws of nations who also believe jurisdiction==place viewed, so yes.
Practically, though, it will be limited to a place where the host has a presence. I
Re:Why not sue... (Score:2)
Re:Information management (Score:2)
Re:Google could fix this easily. (Score:3, Funny)