There is a lot of interesting detail in the complaint, but I’ll just point to one more tidbit. So, perhaps these ad pages are more helpful to consumers than 404 pages. In fact, according to this study, ads on parked automotive-related domains convert at 2X ads on search engines. Pro: Google and the domainers could point out that consumers who access these domain names are either going to see a 404 or a page of putatively relevant paid links, and the latter is more useful to them. (The complaint rejects this approach, calling the trademark complaint procedures “audacious” and “illusory.”) At the same time, it makes me wonder if the class could get its desired results simply from following the complaint procedures. This raises the lurking issue about whether search engines can impose opt-out obligations on IP owners. Indeed, Google is uncharacteristically solicitous of trademark owners upset by parked domains–in contrast to Google’s normal policy that it won’t disable trademarked keywords, Google will completely disable ads on parked domain names at the trademark owner’s request. Whether domaining is a good or bad thing policy-wise depends on your view:Ĭon: Trademark owners complain about the typosquatting nature of most domainer pages. (I explain my view of the interrelationship between domain names and keyword triggers in much more depth here). However, from my perspective, Google in fact treats the domain name exactly like a search query the domain name acts like a keyword to trigger ads, no different from the way Google treats a searcher’s keywords as a trigger for ads on its website. Customers can either display the full page HTML or include it in a frame.” The plaintiffs argue that, as a result, Google is effectively the domain name licensee, which enables plaintiffs to assert an ACPA claim against Google.įunctionally, the complaint says that a “domain name is not a search query” (para. When Google receives the request, it processes the domain name and returns formatted HTML that includes contextual ads and related searches. As the program’s FAQ says, “AdSense for domains customers redirect traffic from parked domains to the AdSense for domains service. It is only available to domain names that don’t have any content (other than the ads provided by Google), and Google effectively takes control of the pages itself. ![]() Google’s program is somewhat obscure and unusual. Much of the lawsuit focuses on Google’s “ AdSense for Domains” program specifically catering to domainers and domain name parkers. ![]() The complaint itself is a 121 page, 638 paragraph (with one paragraph enumerating 47 defined terms), 4.3MB behemoth alleging trademark infringement and dilution, ACPA violations, RICO and other claims. I believe this is the first lawsuit against Google for its domainer relationships. Second, in addition to naming four leading domainer firms, the plaintiffs provocatively go after Google for providing ads to domainer sites. First, it is a putative class action lawsuit. complaint filed June 15, 2007) ĭomainer litigation is heating up, and this lawsuit may be the most ambitious anti-domainer lawsuit to date.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |