Comments on: Competitive Keyword Advertising Permitted As Nominative Use–ElitePay Global v. CardPaymentOptions https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/06/competitive-keyword-advertising-permitted-as-nominative-use-elitepay-global-v-cardpaymentoptions.htm Sat, 20 May 2017 22:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Phillip Parker https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/06/competitive-keyword-advertising-permitted-as-nominative-use-elitepay-global-v-cardpaymentoptions.htm#comment-1858 Sat, 20 May 2017 22:15:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=14395#comment-1858 “Still, I’m surprised the court was able to resolve the second and third factors of the nominative use defense so confidently. Did the review website absolutely NEED to make every reference it made to ElitePay Global (such as including the trademark in the URL path), did it NEED to include the logo, and did it NEED to bid on the trademark for its keyword advertising? It could successfully function as a review website without doing any of the above.”

I would argue that it would be nearly impossible to successfully function as a review website without doing all of the above. Review websites require visitors to be successful and it is nearly impossible to attract those visitors without competing on SEO and SEM front. Using the trade names within the URL is a factor in both SEO and SEM rankings if you wish to achieve organic search rank. Bidding on trade names is the only way to get traffic to specific reviews using search engine marketing, and the logo clearly identifies the company being reviewed. These are all critical components of websites that conduct reviews.

]]> By: invisiblebusinesswoman https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/06/competitive-keyword-advertising-permitted-as-nominative-use-elitepay-global-v-cardpaymentoptions.htm#comment-1314 Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:11:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=14395#comment-1314 As a website that provides a ranking system the owner wants visitors to rely on as accurate and impartial, changing a ranking from C- to F is not a rank based on customer satisfaction (as one would assume) but is instead retaliation by CardPayment Options. The techniques used to bring attention to their page while damaging the credibility of ElitePay may have been proven to be legal, however, it’s at best Black Hat, and IMO, was done maliciously. Fortunately for CardPayment Options, the court disagrees. I don’t think this will be the last battle the site owner has to fight. First Amendment right to free speech won’t necessarily protect them if ElitePay chooses to file in state court, as the tactics and keywords used are a business practice by CardPayment to raise revenues through increased traffic.

]]>