Re: Estee Lauder sues Excite over keywords
KARL ZETMEIR WROTE:
>I would add the following link which explains trademark
>infringement in detail:
>
>http://www.ipww.com/may96/p12us.html
>
>What Excite/Fragrance Counter have done is no more "dirty
>pool" than Chevrolet placing a billboard on the freeway in
>front of a Ford dealership. Would Estee' Lauder be upset
>because Emerald Perfume (fictitious name) placed a large
>space adv. in the yellow pages next to their listing?
>
>Come on Richard, Excite has neither deterred or halted
>delivery of the Estee' Lauder sites or links. This is no
>more "dirty pool" than brand comparisons which are a legally
>proven and ethically acceptable form of advertising. No
>where are the Estee' Lauder trademarks being displayed ...
>so where is the infringement?
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is absolutely NOT like putting up a billboard, placing
a competing ad in the yellow pages or doing a brand
comparison.
In all the above advertising mechanisms, you see both brands
side-by-side. There is no confusion what brand belongs to
who. That is not the case in this instance. The nature of
the keyword buy mechanism is that you ONLY see the ad
attached to a particular keyword. Thus, you easily cause
confusion in the marketplace by attaching an ad to a
competitor's trademarked word.
You are representing that term to the consumer as your own.
I refer to the concept of blurring, as defined by the very
document you sent me to at:
http://www.ipww.com/may96/p12us.html
Source: US Enacts Federal Trademark Dilution Act
"Blurring involves the whittling away of an established
trademark's selling power through its unauthorized use upon
similar or dissimilar products. In this context, the Act
will serve as a vehicle to prevent the creation of Internet
addresses that are associated with the products and
reputations of someone other than the holder of the Internet
address."
I would expand "Internet addresses" to cover "keywords on
search engines" and I think Estee Lauder has won its case.
But what is more disturbing to me is the practice of the
trademark holder having to pay before a search engine will
take the word away from a competitor. I understand the
complexity of forcing a search engine to keep track of every
possible trademark. But extorting money out of me to make it
stop once the infringement is exposed? That's screwed up.
Where else in the legitimate business world do I have to pay
to stop someone from infringing on my trademark?
It's protection money, plain and simple.
"Pay us and the boys will make sure your trademark don't get
hurt."
richard
--------------------------------------------------------
richard hoy
moderator, online advertising discussion list
vice president, marketing and client promotions
the tenagra corporation
http://www.tenagra.com/
p: 281.480.6300 | f: 281.480.7715 | e: rhoy_at_tenagra.com
--------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
Conducent
Don't Buy Hope! Get a 94% User Response Advertising with Conducent!
Place Dynamic Ads in Downloadable Software. Invest in Results!
http://www.conducent.com/advertisers.shtm or eisenstadt@conducent.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request@o-a.com
Received on Mon Feb 01 1999 - 08:00:42 CST
