Hank, I don't have FireFox, so if you would be so kind as to PM me what you are seeing in the <br> line you speak of I would appreciate it.
Thanks.
Is this legal? Anyone have experience w/ this?
- Thread starter RaskyKat
- Start date
Hank, I don't have FireFox, so if you would be so kind as to PM me what you are seeing in the <br> line you speak of I would appreciate it.
Thanks.
Rick you either protect your trademarks or you don't. Marketing has nothing to do with it.
What if somebody created a knock off of your software, used your code, bought up every variant of your website, duped your site, your product name & your marketing images lure business away from you. To create confusion in the marketplace about who really wrote & owns Rockit. Would you simply think marketing harder would fix it or would you defend your property?
What if somebody created a knock off of your software, used your code, bought up every variant of your website, duped your site, your product name & your marketing images lure business away from you. To create confusion in the marketplace about who really wrote & owns Rockit. Would you simply think marketing harder would fix it or would you defend your property?
Drax,
Of course I would protect my trademarks and my product. Have to do it all the time, quite frankly...
But, in this case, we are talking about people that are using other peoples names, as a way to achieve better page rank, and to present relevant text for the search engines.
If you do a search for Rockit Pro DJ, you will find it will come up with 90,000+ results. Should I have my lawyers chase down these 90k, or use it to my advantage?
Personally, I use it to my advantage. I let the lawyers loose on people that are selling hacked versions of my software, and things to that effect, that are actually damaging to my bottom line.
What I find most amusing about this whole thing, and I'm sure you see it often as well, is that apparently many DJs have a lot of time on their hands. Many seem to spend more time on their competitors websites, than they do improving their own!
If someone has an issue with somebody else using their name on their website, they can simply ask that it be removed. More often than not though, the first thing I see is call the lawyers, grab yer guns, yada, yada! :sqerr:
Not very productive IMHO...
I asked Kyle twice to remove the meta tags and anything having to do with my company from his website. You see where it got me.
DjDennis
RIP- My Dad (2011), Sister (2013) and Mum (2017)
now can I say something....
Havent I always said that google will NOT read FLASH sites lol
and no one believes me
now its in BLACK AND WHITE!!!!
I rest my CASE!!
Havent I always said that google will NOT read FLASH sites lol
and no one believes me
now its in BLACK AND WHITE!!!!
I rest my CASE!!
We aren't talking the "theft" of intellectual property or trademarks people. My goodness!
It's not a case of misrepresentation or anything of the sort. It's not like they're marketing themselves AS you... it's just keywords to drive search results.
I highly doubt their Browser page title, or meta-tag description contains your company name in an attempt to "misrepresent" themselves as you.
So what if I type in "Joe Blow DJ" in Google and another dj using that name as a keyword comes up? Who cares? I am a person capable of reading, and I can see fully well that this other "new" dj that came up is not actually "Joe Blow DJ," and I may or may not click through to the other guys' site. As a customer, I still have a choice.
What's next people, really? In a shopping-center with 5 eating establishments, would we take four of them seriously if they tried to band together to "sue" the one guy who hired a sign-twirler for the corner?
Maybe they SHOULD sue.... after all, SOME people who might have been going to that shopping center specifically to eat at "Joe's" may see "Moe's" sign and decide to go there instead!
Do we REALLY think it makes sense or is even reasonable to sue the "traffic-diverting" restaurant?
When you apply this scenario to ANYTHING other than search results, the absurdity of the situation becomes a lot clearer....
It's not theft, it's not unethical, it just is.
It's not a case of misrepresentation or anything of the sort. It's not like they're marketing themselves AS you... it's just keywords to drive search results.
I highly doubt their Browser page title, or meta-tag description contains your company name in an attempt to "misrepresent" themselves as you.
So what if I type in "Joe Blow DJ" in Google and another dj using that name as a keyword comes up? Who cares? I am a person capable of reading, and I can see fully well that this other "new" dj that came up is not actually "Joe Blow DJ," and I may or may not click through to the other guys' site. As a customer, I still have a choice.
What's next people, really? In a shopping-center with 5 eating establishments, would we take four of them seriously if they tried to band together to "sue" the one guy who hired a sign-twirler for the corner?
Maybe they SHOULD sue.... after all, SOME people who might have been going to that shopping center specifically to eat at "Joe's" may see "Moe's" sign and decide to go there instead!
Do we REALLY think it makes sense or is even reasonable to sue the "traffic-diverting" restaurant?
When you apply this scenario to ANYTHING other than search results, the absurdity of the situation becomes a lot clearer....
It's not theft, it's not unethical, it just is.
unethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices"
Okay, that's a gray area, but it certainly is childish, pompous, shameful and downright rude.
I'd expect better from someone that established.
I don't personally know Kyle, Greg -- only from this board. He may have forgot it was in the alt tag for the image, for all I know.
But either way -- your name being on his site, helps you!
Since it's a DJ site, it becomes a relevant term, even though it's not a link. The crawlers use a fairly sophisticated algorithm these days, which indexes relevant terms, not just links. The more places your name shows up on other sites, the better chance you have to make it into one of these background indexes. The more indexes you are in, increases your credibility with the crawlers.
In the long run, it actually will help your page rank, and also help spread your name
unethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices"
Okay, that's a gray area, but it certainly is childish, pompous, shameful and downright rude.
I'd expect better from someone that established.
Pompous: "Affectedly grand, solemn or self-important" grandiloquent: puffed up with vanity
I would argue it's the dj's in question who are so upset over this who are the pompous ones.
Using keywords is using keywords. Period. They're a tool, and using them to get traffic is what they are for!
Here's what YOU should be worried about, and here's where the REAL issue is: How is YOUR site doing in search results?
If someone types in YOUR NAME in Google and YOUR SITE doesn't pop up HIGHER THAN HIS, then don't get mad at him.... work on your OWN STUFF!
And if your site comes up first, or a magnitude of ranks higher than his (or his doesn't show at all), then who really cares? Just take it as a compliment that he views you as competition enough in the area that he thinks your name would be a relevant search term in the local market to begin with. Quite honestly, I would be getting offended if he was in my area and DIDN'T want to list my name!
Let's just lighten up about it... The notion that people doing this are somehow "stealing" from you is ridiculous!
Sounds,
Your name is a trademark, it is not a Keyword! Your competitors names are NOT KEYWORDS. DJ is Disc jockey is. Sounds2go.com isn't a keyword. Anyone else's company names are not keywords.
If this person felt so good, so moral about his actions about listing his competitors, why does he do it in white on white? Try to hide it? If it wasn't unethical why hide it?
Your name is a trademark, it is not a Keyword! Your competitors names are NOT KEYWORDS. DJ is Disc jockey is. Sounds2go.com isn't a keyword. Anyone else's company names are not keywords.
If this person felt so good, so moral about his actions about listing his competitors, why does he do it in white on white? Try to hide it? If it wasn't unethical why hide it?
Wow! I got a lot of different responses from this. I got some input from a DJ buddy about this guy and the consensus is, he's not too bright or too busy. So I might not do anything about it, but if I do, I might just call him and ask him to take it off. If he doesn't comply, I don't know what I'll do about it. I don't know if it's legal or not, but it seems like bad form at least.
Thank you all for your input.
--Will
Thank you all for your input.
--Will
LOL..... Because keyword lists make your site "look ugly."
Hiding it is pure aesthetics if you ask me
As for its being a case of wrongful use of a trademark, it probably isn't. Just typing someones trademark, or mentioning a name isn't unauthorized use of a trademark.
The legal test for unauthorized use of a trademark is whether or not the consumer stands to be reasonably confused or misled as to the nature or origin of a certain product or service based on the information provided.
That is clearly not happening here.
Someone types in "DJ A" and "DJ B" (who uses "DJ A" as a keyword) comes up in the results, they are not misleading the consumer, nor are they representing themselves with that trademark, thereby causing an infringement.
As long as the consumer can still see it is clearly DJ B they are clicking through to, DJ B has not improperly used a trademark because they are not attempting to misrepresent themselves as "DJ A" or confuse the consumer as to their identity or the nature or origin of their services.
Now, if their description text, page titles, and URLs contained the trademark term as well or anything similar in a subtle and or obvious attempt to mislead consumers - THAT would be a clear violation and a misuse of a trademark.
Otherwise, probably not.
If just typing out someone else's company name without authorization is a trademark violation, all of us here had better start a collective class-action lawsuit against each other!
Actually it goes to intent. If your intention is to use their trademark or name to steal business from them, or trade upon their good will, which is EXACTLY what is happening when you use deceptive tactics to infringe their name to get results that you couldn't have gotten on your own, then it is very actionable.
By using your example, DJB is intentionally trespassing or infringing upon DJA's trademark for the purpose of taking business opportunity from them that they have lawfully earned by their good name, & their marketing efforts. You did say the consumer searched for DJ A right? Then DJB is taking unlawful advantage of DJA's marketing efforts by directly infringing upon DJA's trademarks. That is unlawful.
This isn't some DJ's ideas on the matter, this comes from a trademark attorney that files & wins infringement actions every day.
By using your example, DJB is intentionally trespassing or infringing upon DJA's trademark for the purpose of taking business opportunity from them that they have lawfully earned by their good name, & their marketing efforts. You did say the consumer searched for DJ A right? Then DJB is taking unlawful advantage of DJA's marketing efforts by directly infringing upon DJA's trademarks. That is unlawful.
This isn't some DJ's ideas on the matter, this comes from a trademark attorney that files & wins infringement actions every day.
With all due respect Drax, that sentence says a lot about intent in itself...
I've worked with many copyright and trademark attorneys, and yes, they would love you to get pissed off at somebody else -- that is how they make their living!
Trademark is not as implied as copyright is, at least in my experience in the courts.
But, the nuts and bolts come down to; why waste yer time and money, if it is in effect helping you?
The only folks that get rich from this debate and BS, are the lawyers...
Yer lawyer has to prove that DJ B caused you financial harm. How many DJs can afford that? How many will win? How many will have the case tossed? How many cans of worms will come out in the process?
If in the long run, you benefit from something that may at first seem bad -- why would you spend money to fight it...?
That''s part of the business plan too -- knowing which battles are worth fighting
Only one of many examples readily available online, but will suffice:
http://wolffsamson.client.tagonline.com/news/articles/publish/article_62.shtml
States that though intent DOES play a role in determining trademark infringement, it is not an intent to "steal business" from them that will be considered, but an intent to *ADOPT* (think about that word and keep it in mind) a trademark for the purposes of promoting confusion (which the use of a competitors name as a keyword does not) and/or appropriating their good will.
Key here is that infringement occurs when a trademark is "ADOPTED" with said intent.
Trademark infringement occurs when one "ADOPTS" the trademark of another, ie takes it as their own to represent ones' self and to confuse or misrepresent the source of goods or services.
The dj using a competitors name to drive search exposure is not "adopting" the trademark to represent (or MISREPRESENT) him or his services, so intent, as it is shown to play a role in this article and other legal sources online, does not play into the scenario we are discussing.
As the "ADOPTION" of a trademark is not occurring, no infringement is made.
Find a lawyer that can turn someone using a trademark as a keyword into them "ADOPTING" it (i.e. using it to represent themselves). Then and only then will you have found a lawyer worth keeping on retainer!
To prove that someone infringed on your copyright, one of the things you have to prove is the "likelihood of confusion."
(3) that the defendant's use of the mark to identify goods or services is likely to create confusion concerning the origin of the goods or services.
The dj using another dj's name as a keyword for search results is not IDENTIFYING himself or his services with that name. Hence, no trademark violation on those grounds.
Trademark infringement isn't "just" about "using another person's name" to "steal" business away from them. It's about stealing business away from them in a very specific way, i.e. by using their name with an INTENT confuse potential clients, and to MISREPRESENT yourself and or your goods and services as theirs.
Might the dj using keywords "steal" a customer that was potentially "the other guys?" Sure. But is he doing it by using that guys name with an intent to CAUSE CONFUSION or MISREPRESENT HIMSELF and his service?
http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html is also a good summary of what defines "trademark infringement" and how one would go about determining and proving it.
"Infringement criteria :
The elements for a successful trademark infringement claim have been well established under both federal and state case law. In a nutshell, a plaintiff in a trademark case has the burden of proving that the defendant's use of a mark has created a likelihood-of-confusion about the origin of the defendant's goods or services. To do this, the plaintiff should first show that it has developed a protectable trademark right in a trademark. The plaintiff then must show that the defendant is using a confusingly similar mark in such a way that it creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake and/or deception with the consuming public. The confusion created can be that the defendant's products are the same as that of the plaintiff, or that the defendant is somehow associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by plaintiff."
The "adoption" or "appropriation" of the trademark for the purposes of confusion or misrepresentation are absolutely key for determining infringement, and in our scenario here, those key elements just aren't there!
All I can say is that we have successfully defended the unlawful use of trademarks in the manner described. We have a 100% success rate.
Using a competitors name in hidden meta data IS directly intended to cause confusion to the consumer. Afterall, it holds no value to the infringer except that when a consumer search is done for the person's trademarked name, that now the infringer shows up high in the results. That could cause confusion based upon where the infringer falls relative to the lawful holder of the trademark. It is logical to assume that a search for a trademark should not produce their competitors. Google Coke. You don't find pepsi showing up in the results.
The google case is different, they are not a competitor to the people in the keywords. They are exerting nocompetitive edge against the trademark holder. That is a big difference.
Using a competitors name in hidden meta data IS directly intended to cause confusion to the consumer. Afterall, it holds no value to the infringer except that when a consumer search is done for the person's trademarked name, that now the infringer shows up high in the results. That could cause confusion based upon where the infringer falls relative to the lawful holder of the trademark. It is logical to assume that a search for a trademark should not produce their competitors. Google Coke. You don't find pepsi showing up in the results.
The google case is different, they are not a competitor to the people in the keywords. They are exerting nocompetitive edge against the trademark holder. That is a big difference.
I hope that I did not miss anything. Before you demand that someone remove your "Trademark Name" make sure its is registered in your City, County, State and Nationally. If it is only protected in your County, someone else in another County or State can use it.
A website name does not automatically make it a trademark. All that means is that only you can have a website with that name. Someone else can have a business with that same name but you may own the website name.
A website name does not automatically make it a trademark. All that means is that only you can have a website with that name. Someone else can have a business with that same name but you may own the website name.
It's not intended to cause confusion, and it DOESN'T cause confusion.
I type in "DJ A" into Google and "DJ B" comes up (because he used a trademark as a keyword). I am a human being with a brain - I can clearly see that "DJ B" is NOT in fact the DJA that I was searching for. I am not confused. In the slightest.
Intent to "confuse" ONLY comes into play with regards to trademarks when the intent to confuse is intent to confuse consumers about the identity of entities involved, or of the source of products or services. Merely using keywords to drive traffic and place ads in proximity to trademark holders does not confuse in this way.
If you simply pop up in results either higher or lower than the owner of the trademark with both of your identities clearly spelled out because you used them as a keyword, there is no confusion. Strategic ad placement yes. Confusion no.
Maybe if you're geriatric or mentally deficient I suppose....
I type in "DJ A" into Google and "DJ B" comes up (because he used a trademark as a keyword). I am a human being with a brain - I can clearly see that "DJ B" is NOT in fact the DJA that I was searching for. I am not confused. In the slightest.
Intent to "confuse" ONLY comes into play with regards to trademarks when the intent to confuse is intent to confuse consumers about the identity of entities involved, or of the source of products or services. Merely using keywords to drive traffic and place ads in proximity to trademark holders does not confuse in this way.
If you simply pop up in results either higher or lower than the owner of the trademark with both of your identities clearly spelled out because you used them as a keyword, there is no confusion. Strategic ad placement yes. Confusion no.
Maybe if you're geriatric or mentally deficient I suppose....
All trademarks worth having should be registered federally. That covers all 50 states & every county in them.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. We employ very, very good IP lawyers. We have been successful 100% of the time. There are other references that can be found to show the opposite. As far as I know the Google case has not gone to the Supreme court, nor does it look likely to do so.
I say protect & defend your trademarks.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. We employ very, very good IP lawyers. We have been successful 100% of the time. There are other references that can be found to show the opposite. As far as I know the Google case has not gone to the Supreme court, nor does it look likely to do so.
I say protect & defend your trademarks.