<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Google Wins Keyword Lawsuit&#8211;Rescuecom v. Google	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Dec 2006 06:45:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: ReveNews - Craig Danuloff		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm#comment-458</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ReveNews - Craig Danuloff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Dec 2006 06:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm#comment-458</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Judge: TradeMarked Keywords Aren&#039;t TradeMark Violations&lt;/strong&gt;

A little sanity finally entered into the dispute over buying keywords which are trademarked names or phrases, when a judge sided with Google on Thursday by ruling that the act of selling the trademarked names does not constitute a commercial...

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Judge: TradeMarked Keywords Aren&#8217;t TradeMark Violations</strong></p>
<p>A little sanity finally entered into the dispute over buying keywords which are trademarked names or phrases, when a judge sided with Google on Thursday by ruling that the act of selling the trademarked names does not constitute a commercial&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Eric Goldman		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm#comment-457</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric Goldman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:07:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm#comment-457</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Chris, there have been rulings on this topic, but they have been inconsistent.  Some courts will find the mere attempt to engage in SEO problematic (see first ruling in JK Harris), but other courts will look more at the entire context.  So, this area (along with others) remains legally unsettled.  Eric.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris, there have been rulings on this topic, but they have been inconsistent.  Some courts will find the mere attempt to engage in SEO problematic (see first ruling in JK Harris), but other courts will look more at the entire context.  So, this area (along with others) remains legally unsettled.  Eric.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Chris		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm#comment-456</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm#comment-456</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Have there been any rulings on the use of trademarks on a competitive page for the purpose of search engine optimization?

Suppose Widget Corp uses the term &quot;Acme&quot; on its pages, in the page&#039;s titles, perhaps in the meta keywords, specifically for the purpose of getting a high ranking in the organic search results. The purpose of such optimization could be to capture the attention of customers who were looking for Acme. Clearly this is trading on the good will embodied in the Acme mark. Can Acme claim trademark infringement?

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have there been any rulings on the use of trademarks on a competitive page for the purpose of search engine optimization?</p>
<p>Suppose Widget Corp uses the term &#8220;Acme&#8221; on its pages, in the page&#8217;s titles, perhaps in the meta keywords, specifically for the purpose of getting a high ranking in the organic search results. The purpose of such optimization could be to capture the attention of customers who were looking for Acme. Clearly this is trading on the good will embodied in the Acme mark. Can Acme claim trademark infringement?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Eric Goldman		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm#comment-455</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric Goldman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm#comment-455</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Right now, courts are not carefully distinguishing between selling keywords and buying keywords.  I do expect this to change as courts get smarter.  Eric.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right now, courts are not carefully distinguishing between selling keywords and buying keywords.  I do expect this to change as courts get smarter.  Eric.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Dain Binder		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm#comment-454</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dain Binder]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:19:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/google_wins_key.htm#comment-454</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I think it is great that Google has one and I agree.  It&#039;s like placing a billboard add close to another competing business.  You are not using there copyright in your advertising; but are using there business placement to your advantage.

Such is business.

My question would be; although Google won; what if the advertiser got sued for copyright infringement?  Would the suit against Google be a precedent for the individual advertiser?

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it is great that Google has one and I agree.  It&#8217;s like placing a billboard add close to another competing business.  You are not using there copyright in your advertising; but are using there business placement to your advantage.</p>
<p>Such is business.</p>
<p>My question would be; although Google won; what if the advertiser got sued for copyright infringement?  Would the suit against Google be a precedent for the individual advertiser?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
