danielb started this topic @ 15:39 on 28/02/2007
I am an authorised retailer of a particular brand in clothing, recently the said brand have joined up with another major retailer and stopped their brand trademark from being used on Google by anyone else apart from them
This to most people would appear correct , as they own the trademark but.. in my case and many other retails no other brand has done this and I am freely allowed to advertise my other brands on Google, some much bigger than the brand in question.
The point that is affecting me is that I have as an authorised dealer taken on stock from this brand to sell online and have done so far using Google adwords, now they have stopped anyone from using this I have little or no sales at present with much of their stock booked in. No notice was given in advance that they would do this, whereas another brand I deal with gave notice they would trade online in advance, and have not banned their keywords from being used. In other words imagine someone like Ford giving a garage cars to stock then being told you are not allowed to advertise them for sale.
I am not sure what the exact legal stand is on this , but I am in two minds whether to get rid of them and their account from my business, they account for around 20% of sales, so it is not that major an impact, but I am pretty annoyed that over the last week I have had no sales at all due to them launching ,. and advertising at the same time on Google adwords. They have stated they are looking at it, and did not forsee this happening , but to launch and use Google adwords at the same time and banning the use of their name by anyone else, they had pre-knowledge of exactly what would happen.
RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
clickedon | 28/02/2007 04:05 PM
Sometimes things like this can happen through a lack of foresight rather than anything malicious. It could just be a wet-behind-the-ears web marketeer at the company trying to protect the trademark from use by competitors without considering the impact on others who have a legitimate use of the trademark.
Personally I'd keep a dialogue open with them and give them the opportunity to resolve your differences. If they refuse, then dropping them as a supplier is something you'll have to consider if your energies (and AdWords credit!) would be better spent selling something else.
------------------------
Dave - clickedon.co.uk
RE: RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
danielb | 28/02/2007 04:19 PM
Originally posted by: clickedon
Personally I'd keep a dialogue open with them and give them the opportunity to resolve your differences. If they refuse, then dropping them as a supplier is something you'll have to consider if your energies (and AdWords credit!) would be better spent selling something else.
Yes I already have another brand lined up that are more of a force in the market place, will see what the outcome is, any respective retailer cannot be expected to keep stock they cannot sell, or have no chance of selling.
RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
clickedon | 28/02/2007 04:30 PM
I'd still give them a chance to resolve things first; adding the other brand to your portfolio of products and sales margin is surely more attractive than just replacing the 20% you'll lose.
As I said, it's possibly just a case of AdWords Naivety!
------------------------
Dave - clickedon.co.uk
RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
danielb | 28/02/2007 05:42 PM
No, it's deffinitely the brand themselves. They launched their own online shop as a brand on the same day all the Google adverts were suspended. It was either a long term intention, or spring board to give their launch a boost.
RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
danielb | 02/03/2007 12:13 AM
Gotcha!
Competition Act 1998:- http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/80041--a.htm#2
The prohibition
Agreements etc. preventing, restricting or distorting competition.
2. - (1) Subject to section 3, agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices which-
may affect trade within the United Kingdom, and
(b) have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom,
are prohibited unless they are exempt in accordance with the provisions of this Part.
(2) Subsection (1) applies, in particular, to agreements, decisions or practices which-
directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
RE: RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
danielb | 02/03/2007 01:57 PM
I know Google do, and I have advertised on there for 3 years .until now.
Hitting them with the legal stick may not be the way, but neither is sitting on thousands of pounds of stock, that has not sold at all since they launched online.
You buy into a product based on previous sales , and if a large proportion of that was via Google, then I dont expect to sit around forever waiting for them to piddle about.
RE: RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
analogue | 04/03/2007 05:55 PM
It is perfevtly legal for them to do this, i work for an affiliate network and many of the retailers do this, usually when they get a new marketing agency who has not idea about the internet, and thier sales go down
------------------------
Wholesale for small businesses
Funny and
offensive T shirts
RE: RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
danielb | 04/03/2007 11:22 PM
Originally posted by: analogue
It is perfevtly legal for them to do this, i work for an affiliate network and many of the retailers do this, usually when they get a new marketing agency who has not idea about the internet, and thier sales go down
If every single brand just had 1 advert each, Google would lose billions in lost revenue, so I doubt that it is legal in this case, it would be legal in the case of non authorised retailers, thats pretty fair. But to stop authorised accounts advertising, means they will just lose hundreds of independant accounts, and possibley go bust . Another larger brand are very wise and know this and let authorised independant accounts advertise, while they continue their own site. Thus having their own shop, with the added support of thousands of other ones on top.
Talking of which I have had an email from the Google office in America earlier, saying they will override the UK decision and re-instate the adverts 
RE: RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
JustOneUK | 05/03/2007 03:55 AM
A lot of companies use this kind of method to build up their brand. They offer commision (generally through affiliate schemes) and then kill off your chances of earning that commision. What normally happens is someone makes an absolute KILLING by focusing an adwords (or other) campaign on the company name until the company gets fed up and basically bans everyone from using their brand name.
James.
UK Advertising
UK Business Directory
Local Business Directory
------------------------
Advertising Opportunity |
Free Business Advertising |
Desserts
RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
ohsoinviting | 05/03/2007 02:20 PM
Hi There,
Is it not possible to set up a Pay Per Click ad with Yahoo, just to get rid of the stock?
Sarah
------------------------
www.ohsocherished.co.uk
RE: RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
danielb | 05/03/2007 02:50 PM
Originally posted by: ohsoinviting
Hi There,
Is it not possible to set up a Pay Per Click ad with Yahoo, just to get rid of the stock?
Sarah
Just to Update.. Already on Yahoo, Thanks Sarah 
Just had an email literally seconds ago from the UK Google team, they have re-instated my advert on Google. So things are running again now.
RE: Legal question - Google & Trademarks
tillisonm | 13/11/2007 11:06 AM
This is still an issue with many brands, actually.
My understanding is that it isn't Google driving this, but the copyright holders of the brand names. Although Google does engage in the practice itself - you can bid on the keyword Google, but can't include it in ads.
It gets worse though, Apple blocks all use of the word Apple, ipod, imac, powerbook, macbook - and many of them are blocked as keywords not just in ads.
Spare a thought for someone I spoke to recently who does Apple iPod repairs - it's just not reasonable to use AdWords to generate business.
I even had the word Chiswick blocked recently, but appealed the automated software decision and had it overridden!
My understanding is that if you have an agreement with the manufacturer through some approved reseller program or similar, then you can appeal the decision with Google and will then be permitted to use the trademarked terms as keywords and in ads.
Interestingly, huge brands like Microsoft and Adobe don't block those terms at all.
There are a few other tricks that can be used to work around these issues, but they need research on an individual basis.
Take a look at http://tillison.wordpress.com/category/adwords/ for some more advice.
Mark Tillison
www.tillison.co.uk