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
To boldly go .. LOCOG prepares to take on AdWords To boldly go .. LOCOG prepares to take on AdWords Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 Rating: 5


  1. 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...

  2. Did you say LOCOG doesn't have trade marks?


  4. 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,



All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.