
Playboy sues Search Engines over Trademark 46
takshaka writes "Playboy Enterprises
has joined the mass of trademark litigants, alleging that Excite and Netscape are violating its trademark by serving banner ads for other adult sites whenever visitors search for the magazine's home page.
This seems to be yet another case of actively defending a trademark to avoid name dilution.
But, really, how many people who type "playboy" as a search term are actually looking for playboy.com?
" I just search for the articles.
Missed the point (Score:1)
There is a very real chance that someone thinks they're buying from a source they trust, but end up with junk and blame Playboy.
Imagine if some properitary software companies starting buying banner space using "Linux" to suck in users that don't fully know the difference.
Might vs Right (Score:1)
The thing is, the shared netizen ethic is not, and by it there are clear issues of right and wrong on this issue. Folks are expected to follow them.
Thing is, lawyers aren't good netizens -- just like AOLers -- and, like AOLers, they're despised by those whose communities they disrupt.
I know... (Score:1)
I laughed out loud. My mom came in and read it, and she laughed out loud.
One solution (Score:1)
Not quite so. I think I understand. (Score:1)
But.
Playboy maight have a legitimate claim.
IF:
Yahoo, et. al. were deliberately selling banner ads on the basis that they would be turned up specifically when the user searched for "Playboy". In which case Playboy would definitely have a legitimate gripe against Yahoo.
OR:
These banner ads were specifically designed to mislead users into thinking that they (the ads) were from Playboy or Playboy-related products. If that were the case, then again, Playboy
If, however, Playboy is just complaining that generic porn-site ads were displayed whenever the user entered a porn-related search term (such as "playboy"), then they are total arseholes, and this complaint should be blown out of the galaxy
Basically, what I'm saying, is that the article didn't give enough details for me to be comfortable making a judgement one way or the other. And I think that's what the poster you were responding to was trying to get at as well.
(NB: I use the term "Yahoo" here to reference any search engine portals that Playboy is complaining agains, not necessarily Yahoo in particular).
- Sean
- SeanNi
Not quite so. I think I understand. (Score:1)
But.
Playboy maight have a legitimate claim.
IF:
Yahoo, et. al. were deliberately selling banner ads on the basis that they would be turned up specifically when the user searched for "Playboy". In which case Playboy would definitely have a legitimate gripe against Yahoo.
OR:
These banner ads were specifically designed to mislead users into thinking that they (the ads) were from Playboy or Playboy-related products. If that were the case, then again, Playboy
If, however, Playboy is just complaining that generic porn-site ads were displayed whenever the user entered a porn-related search term (such as "playboy"), then they are total arseholes, and this complaint should be blown out of the galaxy
Basically, what I'm saying, is that the article didn't give enough details for me to be comfortable making a judgement one way or the other. And I think that's what the poster you were responding to was trying to get at as well.
(NB: I use the term "Yahoo" here to reference any search engine portals that Playboy is complaining against, not necessarily Yahoo in particular).
- Sean
- SeanNi
I read it using lynx (Score:1)
the title or the word (Score:1)
Better sue Amazon too then... (Score:1)
I don't see how it's trademark violation to display an ad for a related website... or am I missing something?
Generic Banner Ads (Score:1)
Any banners shown by sites which are returned as a result of the search are, of course, nothing to do with the owners or operators of the search engines.
Why people search for urls (Score:1)
Gee it's been ages (weeks) since I performed a search using one of those old search engines. Try www.google.com you won't regret it.
1999 - The year of frivolous Internet lawsuits (Score:1)
Lawyers should be permanently banned from the internet.
Fax0rd suits (Score:1)
What if i wanted to register www.telephonerules.com... Alexandre Graham Bell gonna sue me?
Not true (Score:1)
Playboy is Scared (Score:1)
How ironic that Playboy, once a champion of free expression should be persuing this ridiculous legal action against people who are simply practicing good product placement.
Next Microsoft will be suing NBC if they sell an advertising slot to to Netscape during the same show they buy advertising on.
This is simply a case of Playboy desperate to cover its ass as the internet slowly puts paper magazines out of business. Sorry Heff, just as your rag goes on a shelf with a bunch of other rags, your smut site goes on a rack with a bunch of other smut sites.
I think they'd be better off investing time and money in creating a site that can compete than trying to censor the ads of the competition.
Copyright law (Score:1)
(my two cents
PlayBoy (Score:1)
ignore banner Ads (Score:1)
Yea!!! More frivolous lawsuits! (Score:1)
-Signed Me
You would be supprised (Score:1)
It shows what people are searching for and you would be surprised at what lame things are out there.
Some people do infact search for
"www.playboy.com"
Check it out:
http://webcrawler.com/SearchTicker.html
"playmate" is trademarked??? (Score:1)