Posts Tagged ‘legal’
Google Trademark Guidelines
We’ve reported on several occassions about various insurance companies using Google’s name (their trademark) without permission.
This is becoming so common occurence, with the term “Google it” being referenced in TV advertising campaigns, and not forgetting Television programs and movies. The occurrence is barely worth mentioning, except to say that Google has a set of published Guidelines that define permissible use of their name or trademark.
The article is published at http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html
It also contains a list of Google’s trademarked names, which is handy for anybody who trades with Google or provides associated or re-branded services, or just wants to make reference to the name Google, and is curious about their rights to use the Google name.
If in doubt, simply don’t use it!
Another Insurer Mis-using Google’s Trademark
Earlier we brought you news of an Australian Insurance company; budget direct mis-using Google’s trademark in it’s advertising. The ad is still on air, but the audio has been replaced and the reference to “Google” was removed shortly after.
Now it seems another insurance company is using Google in it’s advertising, Allianz, with the term “Just Google Allianz”, and also featured a screenshot of the Google homepage being used to type in the name “allianz”.
I’m sure that Google’s lawyers will be on the case once again, but what is becoming increasingly frustrating with these advertising campaigns, apart from annoying Google’s IP lawyers; is they do little to educate their audience or raise awareness of their brand and website name.
Promotion of a website and educating the audience can have many benefits, least of which would save the advertiser money, as they remove the search engine from the equation, where there is a high chance the user will see competing websites or adverts, resulting in a lost customer.
Even if Alliance were to have the user click on their ad, the cost of that click could be as much as $3.00.
Had the advertisement said “log on to www.allianz.com.au” they would be re-enforcing the website name, and encouraging users to enter a website URL, rather than relying exclusively on a search engine to reference or find information, which is creating a generation of lazy internet users.
One of the key rules of Online Marketing is to present your customer with the right information in the shortest possible time to help them make an informed decision and then get on with what they were doing. Adding a search engine in the process of delivering that information, when you’ve already run a TV ad campaign might not be the best way of achieving that end.
Google It! - Budget Direct mis-use Google’s name
A new advertising campaign on Melbourne Television tonight for the car insurance company Budget Direct, is mis-using Google’s name.
Or so one would anticipate, once Google’s lawyers get wind of the incident.
Budget’s popular series of adverts feature a young woman with a French accent advising how you can save on Car Insurance by Calling “Boo-Jet”. The young lady is then corrected by an Australian man “That’s Budget, Love”.
The most recent instalment of the ad sees the young lady telling our Australian friend to “Goo-gal it”, who corrects her and tells her to “Google it”.
Google has been a staunch defender of their brand name since the popular term was penned in TV series in the early 2000’s. Whilst flattering, and a sign of the Search Engine Giant’s success and popularity, Google is concerned such pop-culture references may result in the name no longer being protected under intellectual property laws, where brands such as “band-aid” and “Xeroxíng”get used in conversation to refer to sticking plasters that aren’t owned by the Jonson & Jonson (the owner of band-aid) and the copy device being used to photocopy not actually being a Xerox branded computer.
It is rather surprising and amusing that Budget Direct would use Google in such a context in their advertising, and it is either a deliberate attempt by Budget to gain some publicity (and a possibly costly legal suit), or an oversight by a marketing agency or advertiser, and if so very embarrassing, as any savvy advertiser should know of Google’s advertising and usage guidelines.
Either way, Search Engine News is almost certain that Google and Budget Direct will be in the courts soon.
Google Street View Blocked in England
A villager in Buckingham shire, England has challenged the Search Engine Giant, Google’s efforts to capture 3D images of the town’s streets for Google Maps’ Street-view.
A blockade of residents formed in front of Google’s streetview car on April 1st, protesting that they didn’t want images of their homes on the internet, with information and directions to their homes, including what their homes look like, fearing that the service could encourage burglary in the area.
Paul Jacobs, 43 of Broughton in Buckinghamshire first noticed the car from his home, and ran out to confront the driver. He then gathered residents to help form and called the police to the scene.
Jacobs says the service is “not only invading our privacy but also facilitating crime”. He cited three burglaries in the community in the past weeks, and believes said “If our houses are plastered all over Google it’s an invitation for more criminals to strike.”
Google’s popular street view is a 3D version of Google Maps, which allows the user to take a 3D virtual tour of a street or neighbourhood. The 3D Images are created by a car driving around a street with various cameras mounted on the car to take pictures of the street to form a 360 degree image, and is later placed into the 3D map.
Google’s street-view is claimed to block out legible images of people’s faces and number-plates of cars, and whilst being a handy service, many privacy groups are concerned over the potential to abuse the service for wrong-doing.
Much of Washington DC including the White-house is removed from Google Satellite maps, amid security concerns, and it is alleged that terrorists used Google maps last year to plot the horrific bombings in Mumbai, which led to a petition asking for the service to be banned.
Paul Jacobs and his fellow villagers in Broughton will continue to oppose the service from entering their village to uphold their privacy, and more importantly, their security.