George Soros and company up to their tricks once again. This time they ban some internet advertisements from Rep. Susan Collins, who is a Republican as I’m sure you figured out by now, that mention MoveOn.org.
Internet giant Google has banned advertisements critical of
MoveOn.org, the far-left advocacy group that caused a national uproar
last month when it received preferential treatment from The New York
Times for its “General Betray Us” message.The ads banned by
Google were placed by a firm working for Republican Sen. Susan Collins’
re-election campaign. Collins is seeking her third term.Earlier
this week, Google told Lance Dutson, president of Maine Coast Designs,
that the ads he placed for Collins had been removed and would not be
allowed to resume because they violated Google’s trademark policy.Google’s
Web site states, “Google takes allegations of trademark infringement
very seriously and, as a courtesy, we’re happy to investigate matters
raised by trademark owners.” That suggests Google acted in response to
a complaint by MoveOn.org.
The complaint angle is being verified by a source inside Google at SnappedShot:
I don’t know the exact details of how the automated approvals work, but
I can see where it would be very hard to automatically find ads that
violate trademarks, since we can’t possibly know whether the person who
placed the ad has the right to use that trademark in most cases. Like
ads that Dell places probably mention Microsoft in some of them – no
automated system could figure out whether this is ok or not, unless
Microsoft complained.So it’s not Google being evil and pulling the ads critical of MoveOn just because – it’s most likely MoveOn filing a complaint about it, and Google having to comply by law. I imagine that if Blackwater filed a complaint against that ad that was critical of it, that ad would get pulled too. What I would suggest is to just remove the name MoveOn from the ads and replace it with some non-trademarked term, like “morons” or something
But Likelihood Of Confusion, a blog on trademarks, doesn’t believe this constitutes trademark infringement:
Google said it would not run anti-MoveOn ads because they supposedly violated its trademark policy prohibiting the use of anyone’s trademarks in online advertising by a third party. But Google should know better. Courts have repeatedly held that such a “nominal” use is not a “trademark use” at all.
Bob interviewed me for the article. Here’s what I said (I’ve added some supporting links here):
Ronald Coleman . . . noted that, as a private company, Google has the right to treat different advertisers differently.
But he called Google’s removal of the Collins ads “troubling.”
Coleman says that there is no such requirement under trademark law and
that Google appears to be selectively enforcing its policy.“In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion
that there is anything like a cause of action under the Lanham Act, the
statu[t]e governing trademark law in the United States, for so-called
‘trademark disparagement,’ ” Coleman said. The courts have also rejected the notion
that the use of a trademark as a search term is a “legally cognizable
use” as a trademark use under federal trademark law, he added. Coleman
is also general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association.Did I really say “troubling”? Gak. Truth is, this is an emerging area of law,
and you can hardly blame Google for desiring a policy that keeps it out
of Lanham Act lawsuits. They made a hard and fast rule, supposedly,
though the background documentation makes it seem that Google has applied its policy selectively.
Believe me, it’s beyond “seem,” they are most definitely being selective about whose ads they deny and whose they ignore and let through. Hell just a few weeks ago the Google owned YouTube banned Michelle Malkin youtube videos for completely idiotic reasons. Now here they are selectively using trademark infringement to deny ads that counter MoveOn’s message.
Other’s Blogging:
- Right Voices
- RedState
- Daily Pundit
- Are We Lumberjacks
- Infidels Are Cool
- Riehl World View
- No Runny Eggs
- MIchelle Malkin
See author page
Good, that means Google has one foot off the edge of a cliff. Put a democrat in office and they’ll regulate Google out of business. Playing politics in a public venue is never smart. I don’t use Google and don’t understand why anyone does. Boycott, no, just tell them to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
Now should all political organizations and politicians “trademark” their names and do the same thing so that no one can criticize them?
Kinda goes against the “Fair Use” doctrine doesn’t it?
Curt, you may be right about the selective application of the policy; I just don’t know. What I do, and as I explain in my post (and thanks for linking!), is that there is absolutely no legal requirement that Google have such a policy, and certainly none that it apply the policy to “non-trademark uses” such as the one this story is about.