So they’ve finally done it. As inevitable as the sun rising each day or English World Cup disappointment, Google have aligned their UK trademark policy with the US, allowing the use of previously-protected brand names within the confines of ad copy – From September 14th, no longer will this be the prerogative of approved users or the trademark holders themselves.

The reaction in the US following the equivalent announcement in May 2009 was relatively positive, with one survey showing an emphatic 64% in favour of the change at the time of the announcement. Certainly Google themselves are feeling far more confident pushing this out now following this warm reaction across the pond, as well as the triumph against Louis Vuitton in Europe earlier this year.
With the European Court of Justice calling them on side, they may well feel vindicated in announcing these changes now, some 5 months later. It also won’t hurt their coffers, of course, hoping to address the disappointment Kamagra Soft and uncertainty expressed by investors since April.

So is this open season for brand infringement across the Google paid search landscape? Well, on paper – no.

Officially at least, Google is now allowing the following:

“Ads which use the term in a descriptive or generic way, and not in reference to the trademark owner or the goods or services corresponding to the trademark term

Ads which use the trademark in a nominative manner to refer to the trademark or its owner, specifically any of the following:

Resale of the trademarked goods or services: The advertiser’s site must sell (or clearly facilitate the sale of) the goods or services corresponding to a trademark term. The landing page of the ad must clearly demonstrate that a user is able to purchase the goods or services corresponding to a trademark from the advertiser.

Sale of components, replacement parts, or compatible products corresponding to a trademark: The advertiser’s site must sell (or clearly facilitate the sale of) the components, replacement parts, or compatible products relating to the goods or services of the trademark. The advertiser’s landing page must clearly demonstrate that a user is able to purchase the components, parts, or compatible products corresponding to the trademark term from the advertiser.

Informational sites: The primary purpose of the advertiser’s site must be to provide non-competitive and informative details about the goods or services corresponding to the trademark term. Additionally, the advertiser may not sell or facilitate the sale of the goods or services of a competitor of the trademark owner.

In either case, the primary purpose of the advertiser’s site must be to provide non-competitive and informative details about the goods or services corresponding to the trademark term. Additionally, the advertiser may not sell or facilitate the sale of the goods or services of a competitor of the trademark owner.”

Nevertheless, advertisers beware whilst we still await the outcome of M+S versus Interflora, the trademark infringement battle between the keyword infringement battle between trademark owner and competitor advertiser scheduled to hit the ECJ in 2011…

So in practise the obvious benefits, and the most frequent examples cited, fall to retailers. Apple, for instance, are notoriously protective of the use of their much-vaunted brand, even with authorised resellers. This will essentially remove that obstacle and allow all and sundry, landing page content permitting of course, to employ their name in Paid Search ads. Yet although Google are withdrawing from this policing, it does not preclude the brand enforcing an embargo on the vendor. For instance threatening a cessation or adjustment to any existing agreement following a trademark dispute is not without precedent, notably with resellers and affiliates. This self-policing should hopefully see an equilibrium established relatively quickly, much like the previous TM policy change affecting keywords in May 2008.

Instead, the biggest weaknesses may lie in Google’s enforcement. Assurances have already been made by Google that whilst the rules they’re enforcing are changing, the editorial team’s endeavour is not. Yet will the arbitration itself will be open to greater interpretation? References to landing page content are fairly ambiguous so it remains to be seen if content will be scrutinized to an acceptable level. Time will tell how quickly these decisions are made by the policy team and the vigilance of campaign managers is critical.

For concerned brands, we’d recommend the following approach:

1. Speak to your paid search team. Identify the status quo and any existing threats to your brand policing even with the current legislation.

2. Establish how frequently branded search query SERP checks are being made for your account. They should be made frequently as a matter of course.

3. Remember that, to the letter of the new laws, the rule changes do not apply to competitors. With strong and consistent enforcement you will still be protected.

4. Start monitoring your brand terms now, particularly CTR. This will allow you to more effectively judge the impact when the change is put into effect.

5. For direct retailers, an open dialogue with your resellers is encouraged in order to keep a vestige of control.

Author Bio: Latitude is one of the largest and longest-established digital marketing agencies in the UK, with expertise in SEO, PPC, display advertising, social media, conversion analytics and affiliate marketing. Original article is here.

Category: Internet Marketing/Search Engine Optimization
Keywords: latitude, SEO, PPC, affiliate marketing, display advertising, conversion analytics, social media