An 100 year lead over etailers wasn't enough to save Woolworths once the internet arrived |
Next on Robert's list was an analysis of search engine optimisation (SEO), and the ways and means of both boosting websites' ratings on internet search results and the ways of detecting them (this blogger was not previously familiar with the term "black hat" SEO, though he is quite familiar with the bag of tricks to which that term refers). Since SEO never pushes search results higher than listed advertisements, is it worth it anyway? Yes, if the relevant consumers are "ad blind" and automatically discount the top search results as being advertisements, since the best organic search results will be the first thing they see.
Robert then discussed the purchase of keywords, the relationship of the EU's Trade Mark Directive and its harmonisation provisions to the E-Commerce Directive and the bevy of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law on their use and, in particular, on whether the internet-using consumer, being reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant, would clearly realise that the result of an internet search related to the brand which they had used as a search term. A helpful review of the national and CJEU versions of the Interflora litigation (see here on the IPKat) and negative keywords was then delivered.
IP and Retail Conference: Part II
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Rating:
No comments:
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html