https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/outdated_metata.htm Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:38:36 +0000 hourly 1 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/outdated_metata.htm#comment-453 Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:38:36 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/outdated_metata.htm#comment-453 i do agree with u all but from my experiences i learned that still now search engines pay respect to meta tag, some of my site page are listed because of the relevent meta tags

]]> https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/outdated_metata.htm#comment-452 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:53:13 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/outdated_metata.htm#comment-452 I agree that the use of metatags by themselves may not rise to trademark infringement (much like the hidden triggers for advertisements used by adware). However, in combination with other evidence, metatags that are identical to a plaintiff’s trademarks can be powerful evidence of bad faith or passing off. Why else would the defendant be using the trademarked terms in the metatags in the first place, except to confuse/divert?

]]> https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/outdated_metata.htm#comment-450 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:16:11 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/outdated_metata.htm#comment-450 Perhaps because the fact that search engines index metatags has been stated by so many courts that it’s now a matter of law controlled by stare decisis, rather than a matter of fact. Next thing you know, courts will be asked to hold that search engines that don’t index metatags are violating that conclusion of law. You know, they’re violating an implied covenant, or maybe the’re engaged in nunc pro tunc reverse antidilution.

]]> https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/outdated_metata.htm#comment-451 Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:34:32 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/09/outdated_metata.htm#comment-451 Funny! I can’t wait to see the fine levied against Google for violating that order. Eric.

]]>