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.
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.
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.
what about the yellow pages (Score:5, Insightful)
Sue Amazon! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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?
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: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, 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'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?"
Isn't the point of a search engine to accurately return the information that people are searching for? If a user searches for "AXA" using Google, and instead has a bunch of other insurance companies returned, at best I'd say Google's search engine needs a little work.
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: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.
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.
Search engine doing what it should... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what about the yellow pages (Score:2, Insightful)
It's better than the Wookie Defense.
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 competition. If not, I'll find the site PDQ.
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: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.
Google holds no responsibility to the public (Score:3, Insightful)
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 trademark.
I don't really know how i feel about this suit, but i do know some faulty rhetoric when i see it.
b.c
Re:Responsibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 the user into thinking that the company that they searched for sponsored the ad. Don't confuse it with an effort to eliminate AXA from all web pages everywhere.
It's very similar to domain name squatting. If you go to www.ford.com, you expect to find a company named Ford (most likely Ford motor company), not a redirect to www.honda.com. If you instead found information about a competitor, you might think that the company supports the competitor, which is does not. When you think of this case as if it were about a domain name, it doesn't appear to be as simple as others present it.
Re:The proper term is.... (Score:2, Insightful)
In any case, if you want good fries today, come to Belgium. You don't know what you've been missing.
Jw
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".
Re:Responsibility? (Score:1, Insightful)