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."
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?
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.
Basis of the Suit (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ok smartypants.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:4, Informative)
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: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
FYI: scrabble (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Seems they may loose this one (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Promise me you're not lawerin' for money (Score:2, Informative)
> Its not a dilution of copyright.
There is no such thing as "dilution of copyright"
What is hard for you to understand about the fact that it is illegal to use another companies' trademarked name to sell your own goods?
The Google Adword links had "AXA" as the title! That is the problem. If they were "Bob's Financial Services" there wouldn't be a problem I'm sure
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 think they have a good chance of losing because of the term AXA, not because of the term, 'Direct Assurance'.