|
A federal court has ruled that Google is within its rights to sell
advertising when someone tries to look up "Geico" to competitors of
Geico. This kills yet another part of Gordon Roy Parker - alias Ray
Gordon - in his attempt to extort US$10 billion from Google.
http://news.com.com/Google+wins+in+trademark+suit+with+Geico/2100-1024_3-5491704.html
Google wins in trademark suit with Geico
Published: December 15, 2004, 10:40 AM PST
By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
update Google scored a big legal win Wednesday when a federal judge
ruled that its use of trademarks in keyword advertising is legal.
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia granted Google's motion to dismiss a
trademark-infringement complaint brought by Geico. The insurance company
had charged Google with violating its trademarks by using the word
"Geico" to trigger rival ads in sponsored search results. Geico claimed
the practice diluted its trademarks and caused consumer confusion.
The judge said that "as a matter of law it is not trademark infringement
to use trademarks as keywords to trigger advertising," said Michael
Page, a partner at Keker & Van Nest, which represented Google.
Brinkema ended the trial Wednesday to issue a formal opinion on the
matter. She also asked Google and Geico to settle a dispute over the use
of Geico's marks in text of rival ads appearing on the search engine's site.
The ruling is a triumph for Google in that it derives as much as 95
percent of its advertising revenue from keyword-triggered ads, which
appear next to Web search results. Trademarks play a central role to the
sale of such ads because people often use Web search to find products
and services with common, trademarked brand names such as Nike or Geico.
The ruling also could inform similar trademark-infringement cases
online, legal experts say. For example, Google is being sued by American
Blind and Wallpaper for trademark infringement by its keyword ad program.
"This could be a significant change in trademark law, making it harder
for trademark owners to enforce their marks in an online context," said
Terry Ross, an attorney at Gibson Dunn.
Until now, the odds appeared in Geico's favor.
Geico had filed suit in May against Google and Overture Service. In late
August, Brinkema denied Google and Overture's motion to dismiss six
charges brought by Geico, which claimed that use of its name to trigger
search-related ads was trademark infringement, unfair competition and
dilution of its marks under the Lanham Act. At the time, the judge
granted their motions to dismiss claims of tortious interference and
statutory business conspiracy.
On Nov. 19, Judge Brinkema denied Google's motion for summary judgment,
according to court documents.
Earlier this month, Geico settled its lawsuit with Overture. Terms of
the agreement were not disclosed.
Google called Wednesday's ruling a victory for consumers.
"It confirms that our policy complies with the law, particularly the use
of trademarks as keywords," said Google general counsel David Drummond.
"This is a clear signal to other litigants that our keyword policy is
lawful."
|
| |
| |
Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in
news:Ss6wd.6040$mn6.3337@trnddc07:
A federal court has ruled that Google is within its rights to sell
advertising when someone tries to look up "Geico" to competitors of
Geico. This kills yet another part of Gordon Roy Parker - alias Ray
Gordon - in his attempt to extort US$10 billion from Google.
http://news.com.com/Google+wins+in+trademark+suit+with+Geico/2100-1024_
3-5491704.html
Google wins in trademark suit with Geico
Published: December 15, 2004, 10:40 AM PST
By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
update Google scored a big legal win Wednesday when a federal judge
ruled that its use of trademarks in keyword advertising is legal.
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia granted Google's motion to dismiss a
trademark-infringement complaint brought by Geico. The insurance
company had charged Google with violating its trademarks by using the
word "Geico" to trigger rival ads in sponsored search results. Geico
claimed the practice diluted its trademarks and caused consumer
confusion.
The judge said that "as a matter of law it is not trademark
infringement to use trademarks as keywords to trigger advertising,"
said Michael Page, a partner at Keker & Van Nest, which represented
Google.
Brinkema ended the trial Wednesday to issue a formal opinion on the
matter. She also asked Google and Geico to settle a dispute over the
use of Geico's marks in text of rival ads appearing on the search
engine's site.
The ruling is a triumph for Google in that it derives as much as 95
percent of its advertising revenue from keyword-triggered ads, which
appear next to Web search results. Trademarks play a central role to
the sale of such ads because people often use Web search to find
products and services with common, trademarked brand names such as
Nike or Geico.
The ruling also could inform similar trademark-infringement cases
online, legal experts say. For example, Google is being sued by
American Blind and Wallpaper for trademark infringement by its keyword
ad program.
"This could be a significant change in trademark law, making it harder
for trademark owners to enforce their marks in an online context,"
said Terry Ross, an attorney at Gibson Dunn.
Until now, the odds appeared in Geico's favor.
Geico had filed suit in May against Google and Overture Service. In
late August, Brinkema denied Google and Overture's motion to dismiss
six charges brought by Geico, which claimed that use of its name to
trigger search-related ads was trademark infringement, unfair
competition and dilution of its marks under the Lanham Act. At the
time, the judge granted their motions to dismiss claims of tortious
interference and statutory business conspiracy.
On Nov. 19, Judge Brinkema denied Google's motion for summary
judgment, according to court documents.
Earlier this month, Geico settled its lawsuit with Overture. Terms of
the agreement were not disclosed.
Google called Wednesday's ruling a victory for consumers.
"It confirms that our policy complies with the law, particularly the
use of trademarks as keywords," said Google general counsel David
Drummond. "This is a clear signal to other litigants that our keyword
policy is lawful."
So much for someone's apparent idea of starting a new business with a $10
billion nestegg.
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
|
| |
| |
"Krus T. Olfard" <braaap@odor.com> wrote:
So much for someone's apparent idea of starting a new business with a
$10 billion nestegg.
As if that plan ever had a chance. Remember, this is "inexcusable failure"
boy we're talking about.
|
| |
| |
Two things:
1. The issue of advertising for rival products was urged to be "settled" by
the judge. My suit is based on that aspect of it.
2. If one is allowed to purchase the trademarked terms of their rivals for
use in their advertising, then I'll have the same right to do it as my
competitors, including any seduction gurus (several of them have trademarked
terms as well).
I'll have to hop on pacer to get a copy of this ruling.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy any participating
affiliated book!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
A federal court has ruled that Google is within its rights to sell
advertising when someone tries to look up "Geico" to competitors of Geico.
This kills yet another part of Gordon Roy Parker - alias Ray Gordon - in
his attempt to extort US$10 billion from Google.
http://news.com.com/Google+wins+in+trademark+suit+with+Geico/2100-1024_3-5491704.html
Google wins in trademark suit with Geico
Published: December 15, 2004, 10:40 AM PST
By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
update Google scored a big legal win Wednesday when a federal judge ruled
that its use of trademarks in keyword advertising is legal.
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia granted Google's motion to dismiss a trademark-infringement
complaint brought by Geico. The insurance company had charged Google with
violating its trademarks by using the word "Geico" to trigger rival ads in
sponsored search results. Geico claimed the practice diluted its
trademarks and caused consumer confusion.
The judge said that "as a matter of law it is not trademark infringement
to use trademarks as keywords to trigger advertising," said Michael Page,
a partner at Keker & Van Nest, which represented Google.
Brinkema ended the trial Wednesday to issue a formal opinion on the
matter. She also asked Google and Geico to settle a dispute over the use
of Geico's marks in text of rival ads appearing on the search engine's
site.
The ruling is a triumph for Google in that it derives as much as 95
percent of its advertising revenue from keyword-triggered ads, which
appear next to Web search results. Trademarks play a central role to the
sale of such ads because people often use Web search to find products and
services with common, trademarked brand names such as Nike or Geico.
The ruling also could inform similar trademark-infringement cases online,
legal experts say. For example, Google is being sued by American Blind and
Wallpaper for trademark infringement by its keyword ad program.
"This could be a significant change in trademark law, making it harder for
trademark owners to enforce their marks in an online context," said Terry
Ross, an attorney at Gibson Dunn.
Until now, the odds appeared in Geico's favor.
Geico had filed suit in May against Google and Overture Service. In late
August, Brinkema denied Google and Overture's motion to dismiss six
charges brought by Geico, which claimed that use of its name to trigger
search-related ads was trademark infringement, unfair competition and
dilution of its marks under the Lanham Act. At the time, the judge granted
their motions to dismiss claims of tortious interference and statutory
business conspiracy.
On Nov. 19, Judge Brinkema denied Google's motion for summary judgment,
according to court documents.
Earlier this month, Geico settled its lawsuit with Overture. Terms of the
agreement were not disclosed.
Google called Wednesday's ruling a victory for consumers.
"It confirms that our policy complies with the law, particularly the use
of trademarks as keywords," said Google general counsel David Drummond.
"This is a clear signal to other litigants that our keyword policy is
lawful."
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Two things:
1. The issue of advertising for rival products was urged to be "settled" by
the judge. My suit is based on that aspect of it.
We can guess the result. Based on your usual and customary history of
sloth, incompetence and inability, it will be dismissed.
2. If one is allowed to purchase the trademarked terms of their rivals for
use in their advertising, then I'll have the same right to do it as my
competitors, including any seduction gurus (several of them have trademarked
terms as well).
And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the
express purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget. And as
long as they are not getting revenue from those click-thrus there is no
contractual obligation and thus no fraud issue. Nor could you even
prove it was happening, and you couldn't do a damn thing about it anyway.
|
| |
| |
Two things:
1. The issue of advertising for rival products was urged to be "settled"
by the judge. My suit is based on that aspect of it.
We can guess the result. Based on your usual and customary history of
sloth, incompetence and inability, it will be dismissed.
Paul is not a lawyer, of course, and has no credibility on such matters.
2. If one is allowed to purchase the trademarked terms of their rivals
for use in their advertising, then I'll have the same right to do it as
my competitors, including any seduction gurus (several of them have
trademarked terms as well).
And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the express
purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget.
Aside from trying to incite people to harm my business (not wise, and this
can happen to anyone), there are ways to set up ad programs on any search
engine so that no one ever knows I'm the one doing it.
In fact, anyone who wants to make money right now can just set up an
affiliate link, put up a site that redirects, buy terms, and let the
clickthroughs go straight to the affiliate site.
And as long as they are not getting revenue from those click-thrus there is
no contractual obligation and thus no fraud issue.
If the intent is to harm, there is a case.
Nor could you even prove it was happening,
You'd be surprised at what some people brag about on mailing lists they
think I'm not watching.
and you couldn't do a damn thing about it anyway.
You'd be surprised at the reasons people rat others out.
If my enemy's enemy is my friend, I have more friends than anyone on the
planet.
|
| |
| |
Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in
news:U7iwd.7645$E_6.722@trnddc04:
Ray Gordon wrote:
We can guess the result. Based on your usual and customary history
of sloth, incompetence and inability, it will be dismissed.
And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the
express purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget. And
as long as they are not getting revenue from those click-thrus there
is no contractual obligation and thus no fraud issue. Nor could you
even prove it was happening, and you couldn't do a damn thing about it
anyway.
If ray actually started using Google ads to increase his revenue I
seriously doubt that many people would do as you suggest above.
And even if they did the ads might increase his income enough that it could
just be considered part of the cost of doing business - after all, every
Google click-through just has lookers, the same as any other kind of
internet advertising.
And if he had real business to take up his time he might stop posting in
here.
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:Lciwd.887$4u4.59@trndny01:
Two things:
1. The issue of advertising for rival products was urged to be
"settled" by the judge. My suit is based on that aspect of it.
We can guess the result. Based on your usual and customary history
of sloth, incompetence and inability, it will be dismissed.
Paul is not a lawyer, of course, and has no credibility on such
matters.
2. If one is allowed to purchase the trademarked terms of their
rivals for use in their advertising, then I'll have the same right
to do it as my competitors, including any seduction gurus (several
of them have trademarked terms as well).
Aside from trying to incite people to harm my business (not wise, and
this can happen to anyone), there are ways to set up ad programs on
any search engine so that no one ever knows I'm the one doing it.
In fact, anyone who wants to make money right now can just set up an
affiliate link, put up a site that redirects, buy terms, and let the
clickthroughs go straight to the affiliate site.
If the intent is to harm, there is a case.
You'd be surprised at what some people brag about on mailing lists
they think I'm not watching.
You'd be surprised at the reasons people rat others out.
If my enemy's enemy is my friend, I have more friends than anyone on
the planet.
It looks like someone was just pushing your buttons and you responded in
the pre-programmed manner.
When you're that predictable your buttons will get pushed.
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
|
| |
| |
And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the express
purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget.
Are you saying that Google's advertising programs are vulnerable to this?
Since Google is a publicly-traded company, perhaps an investment group or
two should chime in with its knowledge.
Lord knows enough people own stock in Google.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Two things:
1. The issue of advertising for rival products was urged to be "settled"
by the judge. My suit is based on that aspect of it.
We can guess the result. Based on your usual and customary history of
sloth, incompetence and inability, it will be dismissed.
Paul is not a lawyer, of course, and has no credibility on such matters.
Neither are you, on both counts. But, seeing as how every single
solitary time you have filed a case - without exception - it was
dismissed - ergo, you lost - it isn't hard to predict the same thing
happening again.
"You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
And I don't need to be a lawyer to know that your next case will be
dismissed, like all of the others.
2. If one is allowed to purchase the trademarked terms of their rivals
for use in their advertising, then I'll have the same right to do it as
my competitors, including any seduction gurus (several of them have
trademarked terms as well).
And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the express
purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget.
Aside from trying to incite people to harm my business (not wise, and this
can happen to anyone),
You don't know the first thing about law, so don't even pretend to claim
you are able to do so. I know what an incitement means, and pointing
out how stupid you are does not qualify as incitement. I simply pointed
out what could happen, I did not encourage anyone to do so.
there are ways to set up ad programs on any search
engine so that no one ever knows I'm the one doing it.
As soon as it gets out the links go to your site, people will notice.
In fact, anyone who wants to make money right now can just set up an
affiliate link, put up a site that redirects, buy terms, and let the
clickthroughs go straight to the affiliate site.
Yeah. that's why you're broke.
And as long as they are not getting revenue from those click-thrus there is
no contractual obligation and thus no fraud issue.
If the intent is to harm, there is a case.
Oh yeah, right, your spectacular successes in getting service on people
cause fear and trembling at the spectre of being named a defendant
against you. And you'd have to prove intent; just because you think
people did it to harm your so-called business doesn't mean they did, or
that you can prove it.
And you'd have to show that you had a business, not just your imaginary
flights of fancy. You'd have to open your books for inspection and it
would show that you do not have a business at all
Nor could you even prove it was happening,
You'd be surprised at what some people brag about on mailing lists they
think I'm not watching.
Because they know that you haven't got tbe balls, capacity or abiliy to
do a damn thing about it, presuming, of course, that they were
commenting about you.
and you couldn't do a damn thing about it anyway.
You'd be surprised at the reasons people rat others out.
I'd be really surprised if anyone did anything on your behalf, unless it
was to recommend you for psychiatric committment.
If my enemy's enemy is my friend, I have more friends than anyone on the
planet.
The enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily one's friend. There can be
three or more sides to an issue. Just because someone doesn't like
someone that dislikes you, does not in any way infer or imply that they
would like you. Nor does it imply or suggest friendship.
The depths of your incompetence never ceases to amaze me.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the express
purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget.
Are you saying that Google's advertising programs are vulnerable to this?
There have been people who took ads on their site ads and hired people
in India, China and other really low-wage countries to do click-thrus in
order to increase the number of hits in order to get ad revenue. They
got caught. Whether it was just a civil suit, an expose, or a criminal
trial I can't remember offhand. Search "click through fraud" on Google
and you can find lots of articles, like these:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/security/0,39023764,39153875,00.htm
http://www.cardinalcollective.com/blog/archives/2004/05/000923.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19870
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Google-Sues-Over-Click-Fraud&story_id=28609
As it turns out, one guy that wrote a program to do automated
click-thrus tried to blackmail Gooogle, and was indicted.
Since Google is a publicly-traded company, perhaps an investment group or
two should chime in with its knowledge.
Doesn't matter, Google charges the advertiser; the advertiser pays
Google; then if they have to, they pay the third-party for the space.
Whether Google is selling its own space or selling someone else's, the
activity does not affect them and would not be a threat to their revenue
stream (that isn't a problem with all of their competitors as well)
since it's a problem that all companies that sell click-thru ad space
are aware of.
Lord knows enough people own stock in Google.
You couldn't afford to own stock in Enron.
|
| |
| |
And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the
express purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget.
Are you saying that Google's advertising programs are vulnerable to this?
There have been people who took ads on their site ads and hired people in
India, China and other really low-wage countries to do click-thrus in
order to increase the number of hits in order to get ad revenue. They got
caught. Whether it was just a civil suit, an expose, or a criminal trial
I can't remember offhand. Search "click through fraud" on Google and you
can find lots of articles, like these:
Gee, that must really suck for the advertisers, and for Google. Wonder what
they can do to fix this.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the
express purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget.
Are you saying that Google's advertising programs are vulnerable to this?
There have been people who took ads on their site ads and hired people in
India, China and other really low-wage countries to do click-thrus in
order to increase the number of hits in order to get ad revenue. They got
caught. Whether it was just a civil suit, an expose, or a criminal trial
I can't remember offhand. Search "click through fraud" on Google and you
can find lots of articles, like these:
Gee, that must really suck for the advertisers, and for Google. Wonder what
they can do to fix this.
They can watch for patterns in use of automated click-thru programs.
Catching hordes of low-paid Chinamen is another story. Some suggest
that there may be use of checking IP addresses and denying payment for
click-thrus (or denying connection) from sites outside the U.S.
|
| |
| |
Gee, that must really suck for the advertisers, and for Google. Wonder
what they can do to fix this.
They can watch for patterns in use of automated click-thru programs.
Catching hordes of low-paid Chinamen is another story. Some suggest that
there may be use of checking IP addresses and denying payment for
click-thrus (or denying connection) from sites outside the U.S.
Well you certainly have highlighted one major potential problem with
click-through advertising.
The solutions don't sound thrilling either.
|
| |
| |
The solutions don't sound thrilling either.
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) wishing death on a child :
Path: news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news
Cc: caveman21@nni.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:58:08 -0400
Subject: Ray Takes FULL RESPONSIBLITY For The Michelle Mistake
Message-ID: <20000628.075839.-285523.10.The______Seduction_________Library@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,6-9,17-18,20-21,29-30,40-41,48-49,61-62,71-72,84-85,94-95,105-106,
115-116,126-127,133-134,154-155,164-165,178-179,187-188,196-199,201-202,206-207,212-213,
215-216,219-220,222-226,228-231,237-238,241-246,249-250,257-258,264-265,274-275,289-290,293-300
X-Juno-Att: 0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The Seduction Library <the______seduction_________library@juno.com>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Lines: 307
Xref: news alt.romance:246369
WARNING: If Oedipus, Krusty or Tusky respond to this message in any way,
I will return to ASF immediately. If they want me off that newsgroup
they can stay the hell out of my threads.
Read up. I post this not for myself, because I don't care what people
think of me. I post this for my METHOD, because it's being destroyed by
attacks on its creator.
I am going to clear the record on a few things here:
1. I DID wish death on Michelle's daughter Cierra. I did so in an
attempt to snap her back to reality after she had used others' defamation
of me as leverage to get me to want her. Why did I "hurt" her? I DID
NOT TALK TO HER. That's correct: my crime with Michelle was not falling
back in love with her after she had fallen in love with me for four
months, IMing me constantly, E-mailing me constantly, BEGGING me to love
her the way I "loved" "Dominique" (these two are in quotes because I
neither loved her nor necessarily knew her).
2. Wishing death on someone is not a crime. The words were spoken in
anger, after MONTHS of provocation
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker stating women deserve to be raped & murdered :
From: r____a___y_gordon@juno.com (Outfoxing The Foxes)
Subject: Re: Need A Piece Of Advice
Date: 1998/11/02
Message-ID: <19981102.144604.26486.3.r____a___y_gordon@juno.com>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-5,10-14,23-29,32-45,47-50,55-58,60-61,74-77,
79-87,95-97,99-102,105-112,121-122,130-131,138-139,146-147,
156-157,160-161,163-164,181-182,196-197,199
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Look at the way women treat "losers" and you will see
why they wind up beaten, murdered, raped, robbed, disrespected, and
oppressed. It is because women DESERVE it. The ones who harmed me
should thank their lucky stars that I didn't react like a primate and
just dump them six feet underground. Unfortunately, premeditated murder
would ruin this ethical thing I have going for me, although on a primal
level it is quite appealing.
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) on 9/11 :
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Not
a one."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"This attack happened in my HOMETOWN, a hometown I do not
live in or work in because of illegal behavior. I hope those
who swiped my ability to live there enjoy the message they got from GOD
today.........."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"In that building existed little more than a bunch of companies
which hire "office whores" and the like. I have no sympathy for
employment discriminators, and if someone had to die in this attack, I
couldn't think of a better group of people for the terrorists to pick."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
|
| |
| |
|
