OK, here’s a good one. You own the distribution model for paid-for advertising. You allow advertisers to spend money to distribute their ads through your network using your name. You even take their money. Then you sue them for using your name.
That’s what Google is doing. Suing advertisers who use the Google name in pay-per-click ads on Google.
Wait a minute. With all of Google’s fancy schmancy technology, they can’t block ads that use the keyword “Google”? There’s just something about this that doesn’t seem right.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not condoning the work-at-home scams. There are a ton of them. And using another company’s good name to scam people out of their money using trickery, outright lies, deception, and other nefarious deeds is just flat wrong. But if you own the distribution channel for the ads surely you can stop the ads from displaying to begin with. Can’t you? Imagine this scenario: Your local newspaper takes money from an advertiser for running ads promising to make people rich using your local newspaper’s name (fill in the blank). Then the newspaper sues the advertiser for making money off the use of the newspaper’s name. Will it fly?
I don’t think it will. The obvious argument for the defense here is that the company, in this case Google, has the technology, the overall ability, and the motivation for blocking the ads before they run. Therefore, they’re as guilty as the advertiser.
What do you think? Is this a case of trademark infringement or just a bad case of Google With Head Up Butt Syndrome? Or even worst these type of Google scams spend so much money that they don’t mind making some additional money from them until these advertisers get themselves in trouble and then they take action? I don’t know, but this is is an interesting topic for sure!