In my article on Web 2.0 and online reputation monitoring I discussed the potentially serious implications arising from the fact that online content is widely accessible on the internet to millions of people around the world.
Because any negative comments are magnified, and can have an impact on your bottom line, it is important to keep abreast of mentions of your brand by monitoring your reputation. This is basic brand protection that anyone doing business online needs to put in place.
Now there is added reason to closely monitor your online reputation, to make sure there are no errors or other misleading information online. In this blog piece on Google Local Search Paul Smith highlights some interesting developments in Google local, whereby Google is scraping review sites to add information to your results.
Amusingly, Pennington Solicitors is mistakenly linked to reviews of a restaurant. But the less funny side of this is that some surfers may eliminate Penningtons as a potential firm once they see at the very top of the page the words ‘Value for Money - None whatsoever’. Given the speed with which surfers move around the web, it is more than likely that this little error on the part of Google could cost Penningtons business.
I would recommend putting in place a strategy to regularly monitor your online reputation, and decide in advance how you will deal with various scenarios you may come across.
Can an Online Service Provider be held liable for illegal activities that occur by users on their service? In the US, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides an exemption for ISPs who inadvertently provide the facilities which are used by others for infringement purposes. In Europe Directive 2000/31/EC (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) has a similar exemption for online service providers. Essentially, the resounding principle in both laws is that a service provider should not be in any way responsible when they were not aware of the fact of the infringement and when made aware they took steps to remove the content.
In further detail the Directive emphasises that there is no general obligation on Online Service Providers to monitor the content that they transmit or store (Art 15). For online service providers who are hosting content such as Google and their subsidiary service Youtube, they are specifically covered by Article 14.
This is generally how Google shields themselves from most claims but they are far from achieving complete international immunity, as last Wednesday, 3 of Google’s executives and an employee were held guilty of violating the Italian privacy code, leading to 6 month suspended prison sentences.
The Italian Case
According to the New York Times Italian prosecutors contended that “Google was negligent because it allowed a video of high school kids bullying a disabled classmate to stay on its Italian-language video service for two months in 2006”. Many comments were made regarding the post saying that it was “shameful […] should be taken down immediately”. It was not until Vivi Down, an association protecting persons with Down Syndrome, contacted the police, who then notified Google, that it was then almost immediately removed from Youtube.
In their official reaction to the convictions, Google has stated that they took down the video “within hours of being notified by the Italian police” (please see their blog post here). The question is whether any users made any complaints prior to the police take down request. The prosecutors do not seem to advance any substantial evidence on that point and have adduced that it is “reasonable to imagine” that requests were made by users for the video to be removed.
Were Google made aware of the content by other users prior to the police notification, then it is most probable that they would not be protected by Directive 2000/31/EC . However, this is an evidential point and it appears that we will have to wait a further 3 months before the judgment is published in order to read the actual motivations of the judge.
Google, in their official blog, have said that they found the decision ‘astonishing’ and that they are ‘deeply troubled by this conviction’. They have surmised that ‘common sense dictates that only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming’. With this reaction, Google abdicates any form of responsibility from having made this video accessible to the users and takes a somewhat dramatic view on the implications of this decision: “the Web as we know it will cease to exist”.
A way forward
Blanket impunity for transmitters of information, regardless of how innocent, could be seen as a somewhat untenable proposition. Responsibility is always relative to size and Google, as Times journalist said on Friday, has gone from being David to now Goliath. However, even Goliath can not be expected to review the 20 hours of video uploaded onto Youtube every minute for objectionable content. This would be an impossible and commercially debilitating task.
More pragmatically, it may be worthy for Youtube to add a button to their page templates where all users may bring such issues to Google’s attention. In the same way that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre have convinced BeBo to have an alert button integrated into their site to protect children, Google itself could have a button added to its subsidiary’s site.
The down side is that this could encourage peer monitoring which could be misused by sectarian interests or for political purposes in certain countries. Nonetheless, it would be an important development to allow direct participation in the regulation of internet rather than facing what may be inevitable state or European intervention.
In this connection, it is not inconceivable to think of a case being brought against Italy to the European Court of Human Rights, intimating that the display of a disabled child being bullied is a form of degrading treatment is contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The result of which Italy could be held accountable for failing to fulfill its positive duties under that Article. Furthermore, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has been given legal force with the Treaty of Lisbon since December 2009, thereby a preliminary question may be posed to the European Court of Justice on the compatibility of Directive 2000/31/EC with EU fundamental rights.
With this in mind, taking a more pre-emptive and participatory approach to the internet should avoid the need for state intervention and edge us slowly away from the absolute libertarianism that has reigned over the internet to a model more reflective of society at large.
What do you think would be the right way to balance the competing interests of privacy of the individual and the responsibility of ISPs? We look forward to hearing your views.
In January the IPKAT mentioned the new product we had developed - SEO Contract in Context system. One anonymous commenter said something to the effect that the product should be offered free. At the time I thought this was a poor idea given the amount of work we had done to produce it. Little did I know that within a month I would be deciding that that was in fact the best way to promote this particular product.
This is because although a number of people bought the product, it was clear from some of the general comments and questions we were receiving that many did not understand what the product actually was, and why they needed it. Some wondered whether SEO Contract in Context was intended to be a DIY SEO tool. (The answer is no it isn’t. It’s what I wish I could have had available to me 5 years ago when I had a website created for Azrights, and would have liked to know how to promote it on the search engines cost effectively). Given SEO is not a service many people have ever bought, or intend to buy, some didn’t have too much trouble deciding they didn’t need it.
However, SEO is essential literacy that anyone doing business online needs to acquire. It has become doubly important with the rise of social media. That is why we decided to open up access to it for free and to give those who purchased the product a credit note. Here is a link to SEO Contract in Context.
Another reason for taking this decision is so that we can point people to it as an example of what they can expect if they purchase the many other products we have in the pipeline such as Website Contract in Context due to be released on 23 March:Website Contract in Context. There is currently nothing like them on the market.
A further benefit of opening up SEO Contract in Context to a wider audience is that we will hopefully receive feedback which we can use to further improve and enhance both this free SEO product and the other products that are in the pipeline. An improved second version of SEO contract in Context is due for release before 23 March. So if you have any further thoughts as to how we might improve it please do submit your feedback.
Harvard University researchers in a recent study, estimate that Google could be making $497million a year from the practice known as ‘typosquatting’ according to ZDNet
How does typosquatting work?
Typosquatters register domain names, usually a well-established trade mark, in bad faith to gain a commercial advantage. This usually involves holding the domains in a portfolio for web advertising revenue. The function of the domain is to attract traffic and generate click revenue. The revenue is by way of a commission from Google or other search engines. Although the amounts per click may be quite low, for a high volume site the numbers soon mount up to large figures.
Pay Per Click advertising
The reason the revenue comes from Google or other search engine is that these will feature their advertisers’ Pay Per Click ads on the ‘content network’ (those of their advertisers that have not opted out of the content network distribution). These include sites run by cybersquatters, who receive payment whenever someone clicks on the ads.
The way Pay Per Click works is that in order to get their ads listed high in Google’s or other search networks’ paid search results advertisers bid on keywords. So, if the amount being paid per click for a keyword like “computer equipment” were $3.06, then Google or other search engine would keep the entire amount if the click on the advertiser’s ad came directly from the results displayed on its own pages.
But if the ad is sub-contracted out to others who are part of the wider content network, then these third party sites will display the ad too. So if the click on the advertiser’s ad comes from a third party’s page or website then Google or whichever other search engine has the primary contract with the advertiser, would share the $3.06 with the click farmer, as they are sometimes called.
Click farming
The model specifically depends on the small number of surfers (15-20%) who type a url into a web browser rather than entering the name into a search engine. So, if a common mistyping of a brand’s url is entered into the browser, this “direct navigation” traffic (as opposed to indirect traffic through a search engine like Google) goes straight to the page at which the domain is “parked”(that is the place the domain address arrives at), or to its website if there is one developed, as there sometimes will be. Then ads relevant to that brand will be displayed on the page in question.
Example of typosquatting
So, for example, if the typosquatter has registered ‘micresoft’ and by accident when you are seeking information from Microsoft, you type into your web browser “micresoft.com”. Instead of going to Microsoft’s page you reach a website populated with related keywords - possibly selling computers or software. The domain owner, (sometimes referred to as a “click farmer”) would collect revenue each time you clicked on one of the featured ads, while Google or other search engine, would also take their cut from the advertisements.
The difficulties that have arisen between trade mark owners and registrants of certain domain names have been some of the main reasons giving cybersquatters a bad name, and it is interesting how online businesses such as Google are profiting from what is direct trade mark infringement by the cybersquatters. Until the trade mark owner takes action to recover the domain name from the typosquatter, money is made from the ‘wrong’. Also interesting is that while the typosquatter might receive a claim in damages from the trade mark owner, Google seems to get away scott free, although there were moves last year by litigants in the USA to claim against Google. Do any readers have more information about that?
Nowadays, when high street businesses like Spec Savers offer a choice of designer frames for prescription glasses, it’s easy to forget what the opticians market looked like before it was deregulated. In those days there was little choice, and opticians dispensed NHS prescription glasses.
The legal Big Bang augured by Clementi’s Legal Services Act 2007 is nowadays preoccupying many law firms who are wondering what the market for legal services will look like come the end of 2011. That is when the main changes are expected to come into effect.
These will allow law firms and other businesses to apply for a licence to operate as “alternative business structures” (ABSs).
This will mark the beginning of a significant transformation in the way legal services are provided to consumers. While traditionally the provision of legal services has been an activity reserved to qualified practitioners, the ABS will permit non lawyers to have an equity stake in law firms, and may even lead to the flotation of some law firms on the stock market.
The ABS is also designed to foster more innovative ways of meeting consumer demand for legal services. The thinking is that such deregulation will allow more efficient and cost effective services for consumers.
It is widely believed that high street law firm doing conveyancing, probate and wills, and similar work is going to be the first to suffer from these changes. However, no law firm will be immune.
It is difficult to see how the introduction of multidisciplinary practices (MDPs), able to provide businesses with a comprehensive range of services incorporating guidance on legal issues alongside commercial solutions, is NOT going to lead to a significant change for all types of law firm. The very increase in choice and competition in the market for consumers, is bound to have an effect on every type of law firm.
Azrights is considering its position, and how to respond. Currently, we are exploring the possibility of combining forces with graphic designers and web developers and internet marketers in order to provide a one stop shop to start ups requiring websites, identity creation, and assistance with names – company, domain and trade mark names. They also need to understand the many areas of law that we handle, such as copyrights, designs, patents, as well as commissioning websites.
We are also focused on delivering innovative cost effective solutions. One way we are doing this is in introducing more multimedia into the way we deliver our legal services. For example, during trade mark registration, we often find that despite explaining legal principles in simple plain English letters, some of our trade mark clients either do not read the letters closely enough, or for some other reason do not grasp key issues about the law and procedure.
When time is money, the need to re-explain points to lots of different people, becomes expensive. But on the other hand, clients who purchase a fixed price trade mark registration service might take a dim view if we were to try charging them for extra time just to have something explained to them so they can provide further instructions, such as about how many classes they will proceed with.
So, for us, it was a logical step to deliver some of our explanations by video and podcast. This works for us because it takes far less time to produce one podcast or video than to explain something ten times over. As people differ, it stands to reason that some will be more receptive to receiving information through the spoken word rather than through written content. So, a fairly easy change in fact revolutionises legal services, because it reduces the need for one to one consultancy time, while delivering more value to the client.
I would love to hear what others think about the changes being brought in by the Legal Services Act and our response to it as touched on here.
You may have read about the High Court ruling that Portsmouth FC must submit a statement of affairs next week, in advance of a hearing of the case brought by HMRC for winding-up the organisation. This is the latest, and possibly the last, chapter in the club’s recent story of financial hardship, but an earlier event in the saga provoked this blog post.
One consequence of their financial situation has been their inability to pay their website service provider, who responded by removing access to the site temporarily. This kind of incident can have a considerable impact on businesses, especially where their online presence contributes a lot to their marketing and revenue streams, but what other option does a service provider have in the face of non-payment?
The response of the hosting company might seem reasonable to anyone that has had difficulties chasing clients for payment, but this type of action may not always be as legitimate as it seems.
The Computer Misuse Act makes it a criminal offence to intentionally attempt to secure access to any program or data, held in any computer, without authorisation. If this is done with intent to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer, then the offence is dealt with much more seriously. To clarify the notion of authorisation, the House of Lords, in the case of R v Bow Street Magistrates Court and Allison ex p. USA, explained that the offence should cover a person who causes a computer to perform a function when he should know that that particular access is unauthorised.
The potential consequences are not immediately clear, but consider the following: a web design company that provides hosting for its clients, in response to non-payment for the design of a website, decides to suspend access to that site. The company might be authorised to control access to the data on their own systems, notwithstanding certain clauses in their service agreement, but what if they don’t provide the hosting, only the design?
If they have access to their clients web hosting, only in order to upload and manipulate the website, they are not implicitly authorised to control access to the hosted data. So if they block access to the website they are breaching the Act, by intentionally accessing a system to hinder access to data held therein, without authorisation.
To draw an analogy which may be more familiar: say, for example, you as an artist were to sculpt statues for two different clients. It is agreed that the first is intended to be housed in your own gallery, and the second is given to your other client to display on their own premises. On both accounts payment is not received, and so you decide to take action. You remove the first sculpture from your gallery, refusing to keep it on display until your invoice is settled; and to retrieve the second you break into the premises where it is kept and take it.
While you may be within your rights to suspend performance of your contractual obligations, on the second set of facts you commit a criminal offence by entering premises without permission. Similarly, under an agreement to design a website and arrange hosting for it you may be entitled to block access to it in response to non-payment, but if your agreement covers only the design and not the hosting, which is arranged by your client, then your unauthorised exercise of control over access to data on their systems may fall foul of the Computer Misuse Act.
What is important to understand here is that non-payment by a client does not entitle you to take reckless action. There are other options available, for example in the circumstances outlined above you might bring a claim for breach of contract, or copyright infringement. If you find yourself in this sort of dispute it is always advisable to consult a lawyer who, with a proper understanding of your circumstances, can advise you of the best course of action.
Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) refers to the task of improving the ranking of a website in search results. This is of vital importance to businesses operating online, as search engines are the way that most of your prospective customers will locate service providers on the Internet. Despite its relevance in the modern marketplace, many small businesses are unaware of what is involved in improving the visibility of their website. They often hire expert SEO providers to carry out the work for them, but this can be expensive, and where the legal relationship between you and your consultant is poorly defined you may not get the results you were expecting. In fact, using the wrong approach could even harm your rating with the search engines, and seriously impact your business.
Legal relationships can be complex, but they are critical to the success of any business because they set out the expectations and obligations of the parties involved, and so without a well thought out agreement you risk paying for services that do not fit your needs. Unfortunately specialist legal advice can be costly, and beyond the reach of many small businesses.
The truth is that the only way to maximize the return on your investment in SEO is to understand both what it involves, and how to ensure that if you do need to outsource the work the terms of your agreement specify your requirements accurately. This way both you and your consultant know what is required, and you are left with legal recourse in the event that obligations are not fulfilled.
We have introduced a new product that addresses these issues by providing multimedia background information on contractual agreements and SEO to inform your decisions, and a contract template which you can tailor to suit your particular circumstances. To find out more about the SEO Contract in Context System please read our press release, or if you are interested in purchasing find out more on our product page.
Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) in the broadest sense of the word, is an important topic for businesses to understand as it is how you enhance your online presence.
Understanding how to obtain the best results from your SEO consultant involves using an effective contract that is written in language readily understandable by both parties.
Looking around on the web, I came across a number of comments and misconceptions about SEO contracts. Many people seem to think an SEO contract is optional, and that unless you sign a piece of paper you do not have a contract.
Basic contract explanation
So it is important to appreciate that when you ask someone to perform a service for you, such as to do keyword research or to optimise your website, a contract comes into existence as soon as an offer is made for an estimated or set price which is clearly accepted.
For example, if you are engaging a web designer, it is enough that the designer knows broadly what you want. For example, this might be based on your having said you want a really nice looking website, and picked a few sites you liked the look of, received a quote, which you clearly accepted. None of that needs to be in writing. You will be bound in contract whether you realise it or not. If one party denies that a contract was formed the law has ways and means of establishing the truth, by looking at certain background facts to work out which of the two parties to believe.
A contract is formed much sooner than is appreciated
Provided it is clear who the parties to the contract are, what the contract relates to, and how much will be paid, then a contract exists as soon as an offer is deemed accepted in the eyes of the law. No formality is needed.
Therefore, you may carry on your discussions thinking you are still negotiating terms when in fact it will be too late to make your further requirements form part of the agreement. Once the contract has already been formed you may discuss details, but that is different from adding new stipulations, such as strict time limits for performance.
Changing your mind
Say it is agreed that the other party will build a website in return for an agreed fee of £5,000, but many of the details (such as whether it should come already optimised for the search engines) have not yet been discussed. If your agreement was based on your having a beautiful static site designed for you, and then later you changed your mind and decided that actually what you wanted was a well optimised site on a content management platform, if the designer could not deliver your changed requirement, and you wanted to engage someone else, you would be in breach of contract. If the designer wanted to, they could ask you to pay damages for cancelling the contract.
Now the fact that in practice most disputes are resolved between the parties because people tend to be reasonable and manage to sort out their disputes without the need to involve lawyers or the courts is no reason to assume that contracts should therefore be ignored. Similarly, the fact that the discussions were oral and nothing was committed to paper does not mean you cannot be challenged about breaking your promises. It would just be rather more messy, and expensive to sort out disputes based on a purely oral contract.
Importance of contracts
Contracts serve many useful functions. Often with search engine optimisation, buyers have a rose tinted view of what they will receive when they engage an SEO consultant. The SEO may want the work, so has less incentive to enlighten the buyer about the reality of what can be achieved within their budget. It is not for no reason that the law cautions ‘Buyer Beware’. It really is more important for buyers to look out for themselves and check that what they are buying is what they think they will get.
But because buyers of SEO or other internet related services often lack the necessary understanding of the service, it is difficult for them to take control.
That is why we have developed our Contract in Context System for helping buyers, lawyers and SEOs to get the know how they need about SEO and also about contracts. By implementing an SEO strategy for their business, and using a suggested contract template when engaging SEO consultants, small business owners can take control and put in place an effective, plain English, short contract to ensure a successful outcome. SEOs will learn a lot from the System, even though they already have the SEO know how that is included as part of the System.
What do I do if I think that someone has infringed my copyright on the internet by posting my content on their website? The first question to ask is where is the infringing website located? Is it a ‘.com’ or another local extension. For infringing websites based in the US the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 and other legislation will apply. Before considering legal action your main option is to contact the infringer directly and ask them to ‘take down’ the infringing content. If your request is ignored, you could also contact the infringing website’s host (they should have an agent that deals solely with take down notices). For what such ‘take down notices’ should include see here (US Code, Title 17/Chapter 5/ Section 512 (c)3 or for a sample see IPWatchdog blog).
Bringing a copyright infringement action to the US
It is important to bear in mind that the US has a system of registration of copyright and that in the UK the law does not require registration. But does the US recognise copyright from abroad which is established through other means apart from registration? According to a recent US ruling involving YouTube US District Judge Louis Stanton of New York wrote that the DMCA 1998 “bars statutory damages for all foreign and domestic works not timely registered” (see ruling here). Therefore, a UK claim of copyright will not lead to damages in the US. There is an exception, however, for live broadcasts such as sporting events. However, the same judge was of the view that one could still bring an “infringement suit […] based on an unregistered foreign [copyright work]”. In summary, a foreign action consisting of an unregistered copyright can be taken to the US but damages will not be available.
Bringing a copyright infringement action in the UK
If the owner of the infringing website is resident in the UK then UK jurisdiction would come into play. As with US copyright infringement first approach the owner of the site and then their ISP.The substance of copyright law derives from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988)where it sets out the types of works that benefit from copyright, the question of authorship and the duration of copyright. Unlike the US, in the UK copyright is inherent in the creation – no registration is required. The display on a website of a copy of someone’s else work would be a basic infringement under the Act.
Remedies in the UK
As to the question of remedies available for the copyright owner, under section 96 of the Act, a number of options are available for copyright infringement. These include damages, injunctions, accounts (accounts for profits). In more detail, a damages claim will calculate the depreciation of the value of the copyright caused by the infringement. The Court is also able to provide ‘additional damages’ and in so doing will consider matters such as the flagrancy of the infringement and how much benefit the defendant received from the infringement. If the defendant has received a financial benefit from exploiting the copyrighted works then an account of profits may also be made to the claimant (however, either an account of profits may be claimed or damages, not both and ‘additional damages’ are not available for account of profit claims).
Copyright owners in the UK are showing a tendency to claim for damages for website related infringements. It seems that it will not be enough to simply remove the content from the website. Last year Getty Images, a leading provider of digital media, managed to retrieve damages from a removal firm JA Coles plus legal costs for using a photo from Getty on their website (See Outlaw article here). It seems that Getty has an automated method of spotting infringements (see blog article here) and a pro active attitude towards enforcing their copyright in their images.
As one of Charmian Ingram’s recent pupils I was the invited speaker today at this month’s City Speakers lunch. She had managed to secure the British Library’s Business and IP Centre as the venue, and there was a good turn out. Charmian’s events are popular as the format of a speaker imparting some knowledge interspersed with networking with potential quality contacts is a successful formula.
Deciding what to include and what to exclude from a 30 minute talk on Reputation monitoring was not easy. Here are my slides:
I opted to tackle the subject by first painting a negative scenario illustrating the difficulty in having something undesirable about yourself removed from the web. Then, I gave an example of the positive power of web 2.0 to catapult a business to success. Dr Helaine Smith, a US dentist whose e-book Healthy Mouths Healthy Sex has been downloaded thousands of times, has quickly established her credibility as an expert, to the benefit of her dental practice.
My aim was to communicate that brand protection and brand promotion are different sides of the same coin. If I were addressing an audience of larger brand owners, I would focus on brand protection. For smaller businesses who may not yet have much of a brand to protect, I place the emphasis on using web 2.0 to build the brand, and attract business. However, the same basic approach outlined in the talk is relevant whether promotion or protection is the focus.
I gave some pointers to beware of when seeking to protect brands online – specifically how not to fall victim to the Streisand Effect. Use lawyers who understand the web, and can forewarn you of unintended consequences.
There was little doubt among the audience that social media is not a fad, and is here to stay. All agreed that we are at the beginning of a revolution. Clearly the message in this video about Social Media has therefore reached far and wide but as I really like it and it communicates the power of the web well, I am embedding it here:
So, social media is changing the rules in many industries, and I mentioned the marketing and advertising industry in particular. New rules of ‘engagement’ on social media are replacing the old rules of so called ‘interruption marketing’. My ideas are more fully expounded in the opening chapter of my new book, a book I am publishing gradually through the blog as explained more here (When someone asked a question about protecting intellectual assets from copying and theft, I did explain that although I want to get content and ideas out into the public domain, I take care to protect some ideas by withholding them. They will only be available to those who buy the book).
The rise of search engines as the first port of call for many of us looking for products and services, means there are huge opportunities for those whose content appears in front of their potential buyers at the time when these buyers are seeking it. So for social media to yield benefits, it is important to understand your customers. Otherwise, social media is unlikely to yield much business, and will just be a waste of time. So a strategic approach is the aim.
By strategy I mean being clear about your positioning, how you differ from your competitors, and what you uniquely offer to the market. This is a difficult subject, that many businesses could be grappling with for years. It is easier said than done. Generally, the narrower you go the more likely you are to identify your niche. Then developing an understanding of potential buyers, and the words they use to look for solutions to their problems should be easier, as should keyword research.
Also anyone who wants to use social media marketing for their business should establish a blog. It’s the most powerful way of producing content that potential buyers will be interested in. However, to reap the benefits of blogging, the aim should be to produce remarkable content at least sometimes. So, before beginning a blog, listen to other blogs, comment on some maybe, and then when you’re ready set one up.
Finally, I ended by discussing monitoring, by using Google alerts to keep track of mentions of your name, your keywords, and that of competitors. The results could be received by email or, if you have a large number, sent through an RSS feed to Google reader - a free service.
There were a number of questions, including one by someone who had experienced a situation where an advertiser on Google had used their company’s brand name in the text of an ad, and sent the ensuing traffic to its own website. This was felt to be deceptive, and wrong.
The topic of Google Adwords and Google’s policies has many dimensions. The basic position is that Google’s policy will “not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint” (see here). This is an overall policy that applies across the board. The legality of some of Google’s policies is awaiting the decision of the European Court of Justice. (In the meantime, the advocate general has submitted an opinion as discussed here. We have also discussed Google Adwords in other blog posts here, here, here, and here.) From this it may be guessed that this is an involved subject.
As regards the question raised at the event, Google will investigate the use of trademarks belonging to third parties in ad text. Google has made it clear that this will depend on the territory – for a list of the countries where such investigations will occur see link. Also, the US policy is slightly more lenient allowing some ads to be ‘displayed with a trademark in ad text if the ad is from a reseller or from an information site’ (US Google trademark policy). Not knowing more about the facts of the case raised at the event, I can’t comment further. However, if further facts can be added here, or others have further comments, questions or remarks please leave them here.
This blog gives general information, and should not be relied on for legal advice. Advice may only be given in a solicitor-client relationship where the individual circumstances are known. The blog does not promise or guarantee to be correct, complete and up-to-date. Links to other sites are not intended as referrals, nor do we control or endorse the content of third party sites.
You may have read about the High Court ruling that Portsmouth FC must submit a statement of affairs next week, in advance of a hearing of the case brought by HMRC for winding-up the organisation. This is the latest, and possibly the last, chapter in the club’s recent story of financial hardship, but an earlier event in the saga provoked this blog post.
