For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

To boldly go .. LOCOG prepares to take on AdWords

The Locogosaurus engages with the
Googleraptor in a fight to the death for,
er, the right to tale other people's money
Don't despair -- if you own a beloved trade mark but can't stop those dreadful folk at Google selling it to enemy aliens as an AdWord, watch this space and see whether someone else can, this being the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG).  According to the Kats' information,
"The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) will crack down on brands that breach its advertising restrictions online, including bidding against trade mark terms on Google, in the run-up to and during next year’s Olympic Games.

LOCOG heavily restricts the use of specific trade mark terms such as “London 2012”, “Olympic” and “Paralympic” in any marketing activity by anyone other than its commercial partners. These include Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Visa. But competitor brands will be able to bid against these phrases on Google if the search engine maintains its current trade mark policy. For the past three years Google has allowed rival brands to buy trade mark terms.

LOCOG has yet to announce its formal online advertising policy ahead of the Games, but a spokesman told Marketing Week sister title New Media Age [which broke this story first] it was aware of Google’s trade mark rules. “We’re aware of the Google AdWords policy,” he said. “We take all attempts to ambush the London 2012 brand seriously and we deal with any incidents on a case-by-case basis.”

Since its decision to relax its rules, Google has come under fire from brands that say it’s breaking trade mark rules. However, last year the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said Google was doing no such thing [see the IPKat here, among other places]. Instead, in March this year the advocate general of the ECJ advised that it was advertisers themselves that should be found liable for trade mark infringement if they bought Google AdWords ads against rival trade marked brands [this sounds like the Interflora opinion, here].

Henry Ellis, Tamar associate director for social media, said brands must be careful if they associate themselves with the Games. “LOCOG and the Government are incredibly protective of the Olympic brand and would look to make an example of any advertiser that breaks their rules,” he said".
Thank you, veteran reader Lee Curtis, for the lead!

Source: "LOCOG to protect Olympic trademark search terms", by Will Cooper, Marketing Week, 11 May 2011

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

LOCOG doesn't have trade marks. It will be interesting to see if the anticipated use of the restricted words falls within the Olympic-specific legislation...

Jeremy said...

Did you say LOCOG doesn't have trade marks?

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=2396901

Anonymous said...

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-adp?propnum=0328602001

austrotrabant said...

So in fact LOCOG just forbids its partners to bid for some keywords not to increase demand for these keywords and thus the price, right?

Sounds reasonable... as long as any non-partners are free to continue booking the terms as keywords.

Kind of reminds me of the contractual clauses which forbid resellers to advertise for certain TM-products on price-comparing-websites to prevent competition and thus low prices...

By the way, Google recently made another small small step to please trademark owners by adding part of the Display-URL (URL usually placed under the ad) to the title of their Top-Ads. Well, this will however only please TM-owners which also own the URL of their TM ;)

Kind regards & best greetings,

Austrotrabant

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':