<?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 Loses PPC Ad Case</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:40:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google AdWords Trademark Case Dropped After The Plaintiff Rescuecom Gets Sued For Doing The Same Thing &#124; Domaining Manual</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/comment-page-1/#comment-27274</link>
		<dc:creator>Google AdWords Trademark Case Dropped After The Plaintiff Rescuecom Gets Sued For Doing The Same Thing &#124; Domaining Manual</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=2831#comment-27274</guid>
		<description>[...] Back in April 2009 we wrote about how the appeals court ruled against Google in favor of Resuecom. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Back in April 2009 we wrote about how the appeals court ruled against Google in favor of Resuecom. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PPC Advertiser</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/comment-page-1/#comment-23438</link>
		<dc:creator>PPC Advertiser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=2831#comment-23438</guid>
		<description>Nice post! Very complete and detail information. That</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post! Very complete and detail information. That</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve M</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/comment-page-1/#comment-12646</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:31:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=2831#comment-12646</guid>
		<description>Like a number of others, I also see this--if it holds up--as a positive for owners of generic names.

Take away their trademark bidding, and where else they gonna go?

And Mike&#039;s right on the legal liability. Google cannot pass it off on the advertisers, as they are running the operation that permits this infringement. 

Josh--adding a tld to the end of otherwise non-trademarkable, generic words &amp; terms no longer qualify for trademarks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like a number of others, I also see this&#8211;if it holds up&#8211;as a positive for owners of generic names.</p>
<p>Take away their trademark bidding, and where else they gonna go?</p>
<p>And Mike&#8217;s right on the legal liability. Google cannot pass it off on the advertisers, as they are running the operation that permits this infringement. </p>
<p>Josh&#8211;adding a tld to the end of otherwise non-trademarkable, generic words &amp; terms no longer qualify for trademarks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jp</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/comment-page-1/#comment-12644</link>
		<dc:creator>jp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:15:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=2831#comment-12644</guid>
		<description>Never say Never. Just ask the banks. If google continues to make bad decisions that are either not productive or that steps on the feet of others, their day will come too. You just have to be patient.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Never say Never. Just ask the banks. If google continues to make bad decisions that are either not productive or that steps on the feet of others, their day will come too. You just have to be patient.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BullS-Websites</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/comment-page-1/#comment-12643</link>
		<dc:creator>BullS-Websites</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=2831#comment-12643</guid>
		<description>Google never lose!!!

They might lose this one, but they will always with the WAR.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google never lose!!!</p>
<p>They might lose this one, but they will always with the WAR.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: redundant</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/comment-page-1/#comment-12640</link>
		<dc:creator>redundant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:16:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=2831#comment-12640</guid>
		<description>Here is an article talking about their patent, but I did not originally read this story their. I believe it was from an ex-employee of GoDaddy that they give the recommendation to the parking clients to not specify any words and their system would automatically avoid trademark phrases.

http://domainnamewire.com/2008/02/26/godaddy-files-patent-for-filtering-ads-on-trademark-domains/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is an article talking about their patent, but I did not originally read this story their. I believe it was from an ex-employee of GoDaddy that they give the recommendation to the parking clients to not specify any words and their system would automatically avoid trademark phrases.</p>
<p><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2008/02/26/godaddy-files-patent-for-filtering-ads-on-trademark-domains/" rel="nofollow">http://domainnamewire.com/2008/02/26/godaddy-files-patent-for-filtering-ads-on-trademark-domains/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MHB</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/comment-page-1/#comment-12639</link>
		<dc:creator>MHB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=2831#comment-12639</guid>
		<description>Redundant

Where do you see Godaddy.com policing their own parked domains for trademarks?

We have written on many occasions about all the domains Godaddy.com sells through their action system, which are first parked by them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Redundant</p>
<p>Where do you see Godaddy.com policing their own parked domains for trademarks?</p>
<p>We have written on many occasions about all the domains Godaddy.com sells through their action system, which are first parked by them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Redundant</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/comment-page-1/#comment-12636</link>
		<dc:creator>Redundant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:24:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=2831#comment-12636</guid>
		<description>If GoDaddy can police their own parked domains to make them non-Trademark infringing than Google can definitely make their ads not infringe on anyones rights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If GoDaddy can police their own parked domains to make them non-Trademark infringing than Google can definitely make their ads not infringe on anyones rights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/comment-page-1/#comment-12635</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=2831#comment-12635</guid>
		<description>Dual use is the issue here, as well as generic words that are trademarked with a tld.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dual use is the issue here, as well as generic words that are trademarked with a tld.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MHB</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/04/05/google-loses-ppc-ad-case/comment-page-1/#comment-12632</link>
		<dc:creator>MHB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=2831#comment-12632</guid>
		<description>Duane

Google can&#039;t rid themselves of liability by putting it on the advertiser.

The advertiser might be liable as well, but if Google gets sued for putting ads on their network which are found to violate federal trademark law, they can&#039;t just pass this is liability on.

We will see what the trial court does with it now that they are getting the case back</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Duane</p>
<p>Google can&#8217;t rid themselves of liability by putting it on the advertiser.</p>
<p>The advertiser might be liable as well, but if Google gets sued for putting ads on their network which are found to violate federal trademark law, they can&#8217;t just pass this is liability on.</p>
<p>We will see what the trial court does with it now that they are getting the case back</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

