我在博客上发过的一篇关于Google 的商标问题的文章，被Teletext Holidays 公司在线商务总监Matt Cheevers 称之为“廉价且有失精准的一击”。
在对这篇文章的评论中，Matt Cheevers还说起他们没有对TourCMS（欧盟注册号码4735635 ）这个词进行竞价，而是选择了另一个相关的词Tours，我想，他也正是因为这个原因而建议Google应当受到谴责，因为他公司的广告唯一受到的竞争都来自TourCMS这个词。这些我都接受，我也表示同意——我也想不出任何理由他们当时该买下TourCMS这个关键词。毕竟，做旅游管理软件的是我们，而他纯粹是做旅游的。
（背景——当时Teletext Holidays在伦敦把Directline Holidays 告上了法庭，因为Directline Holidays出现在了Teletext Holidays经过商标注册的词条中）
所以——如果我读懂了他的意思的话——这家在Google广告上同对手展开合法竞争的公司的在线商务总监也赞同，一则广告出现在Google某一词条的搜索结果中，并不意味着广告投放者就在对该词条进行竞价。因此，没有负面效应的广泛匹配显然是不错的选择。（译者注：广泛匹配，英文 BroadMatching是指当一个和多个关键词出现在搜索请求中时显示广告的匹配模式。）
我的观点是，因为TourCMS是旅游管理软件，而Teletext Holidays是风险较小的度假方式——因此，从法律上来看，这跟 Directline和Teletext Holidays的案子还不是一回事。
而这正是最有意思的地方。
假设1
Directline Holidays的确在针对Teletext Holidays的关键词进行竞价。竞价结果如何他们自己还不得而知…… 我觉得这正是他们被诉诸法庭的原因所在。
假设2
Directline Holidays事实上并没有对Teletext的搜索词条竞价——只是因为Google的工作原理，使其碰巧出现在相关的搜索结果中。这是让问题变复杂的地方：
1、Directline Holidays是否有责任向Google 提供有可能产生消极效应的关键词，来保证他们不出现在是注册商标的关键词的搜索结果中呢？
2、该不该要求Google向法庭出示广告纪录呢（用来证明Directline到底有没有使用已被他人注册商标的词条做广告——或是证明Directline有没有做出一些尝试以不出现在我们正在讨论的这些的搜索词条中）？
3、从商标法的角度来看，就某个搜索词条进行“竞价”的行为（这是受广告客户的控制的）和在就某一搜索词条在Google中“出现”（这是部分由广告客户控制、部分由Google控制的）是否存在一些差异呢？
我觉得每个搜索引擎广告客户都会想要一个简洁漂亮的流程图，来告诉他们现在该干什么。要有哪个积极进取的律师建议一下，他们可能做一个出来，在网上可以一次卖50英镑（100美元）…… 而且还可能卖掉不少。
（免责声明——Teletext Holidays和Directline Holidays都不是我的客户——而且我跟这两家公司的人都不熟——因此我没有任何理由要偏袒任何一方）
（第二免责声明——我不是律师——这不是法律意见）
我有预感，TTI在花了数周的时间来组织的活动“Google travel之晨”（08年6月17日）一定会很好玩，届时我将以专家小组成员的身份出席。
原文出处：Musings on travel ecommerce 作者：Alex Bainbridge
原文:
The key questions on the Google PPC trademark issue
My last blog post about the Google trademark question was called a “cheap and inaccurate shot” by the MD of Teletext Holidays Matt Cheevers. (See original blog post)
Matt Cheevers goes on to say, in a comment on this blog, that they don’t bid against the TourCMS trademark (EU registration number 4735635)…. but against another related term (Tours) - and, I assume, that he therefore suggests that Google are to blame for his advertising coming up against the single keyword “TourCMS” search term. I accept all that - and I agree - I can’t see any reason why they would be bidding on the TourCMS keyword. We sell tour operator software - he sells holidays.
[Context - Teletext Holidays are taking Directline Holidays to court in London because Directline Holidays are appearing on search terms that are trademarked by Teletext Holidays]
So - if I read this right - the MD of the company that is commencing legal action against a competitor about Google advertising agrees that just because an advert appears against a search term on Google this doesn’t mean that the advertiser is bidding on that search term. Hence broadmatching without negatives is apparently fine.
[Yes I appreciate that the because TourCMS is tour operator software and Teletext Holidays is travel there is lower risk of passing off - hence this, in law, isn’t quite the same as the Directline / Teletext holidays case]
This is where it gets interesting.
Scenario #1
Directline Holidays are indeed bidding on the Teletext holidays keyword. Not sure what the outcome is here….. I guess this is why it goes to court.
Scenario #2
Directline Holidays are not actually bidding on the Teletext search term - but happen to be appearing on the results because of the way that Google works. This is where these questions become complex:
1.Is there an onus on Directline Holidays to add negative keywords to Google to ensure that they don’t appear on the search results for trademarked terms?
2.Will Google be required to show advertising records to the court? (to demonstrate whether Directline are advertising on the trademarked terms - or whether Directline have made any attempt to not appear on the search terms under discussion)?
3.Is there a difference (in trademark law) between the action of “bidding” on a search term (which is under the control of the advertiser) and the action of “appearing” against a search term when used in Google (which is partially under the control of the advertiser - but also partially under the control of Google).
What I think every search engine advertiser wants is a nice and simple decision flow chart that covers what we should all be doing right now. If there is an enterprising lawyer out they there could probably create one and sell it online for 50 GBP (100 USD) a time…. and they would probably sell hundreds.
[Disclaimer - Neither Teletext Holidays nor Directline Holidays are clients - nor do I, to my knowledge, know anyone well who works at either of the two organisations - hence there is no reason for me to take one side or the other]
[2nd disclaimer - I am not a lawyer - this is not legal advice]
Something tells me that the event that the TTI are organising a few weeks time (June 17th 08) - A morning with Google travel (where I will be on the expert panel) - will be fun.
收藏
推荐
评论(0条)