Take The Geico Challenge

Yesterday I read the MarketingVox reports that the folks behind those annoying 'gecko' ads had actually won a portion of their suit against Google. Turns out that isn't true.

Andrew over at Traffick clears up the Google/Geico conclusion, pointing to a full article in MediaPost.

So buying trademarked terms as keywords is OK, but using those terms in your ad copy isn't. Can someone tell me why Pepsi can call Coke out in tv commercials but not in PPC text ads? Or why href="http://www.precommerce.com/blog/archives/001443.html">DHL can race Fedex trucks down the street but not name them online. Any lawyers out there?

Update:Google General Counsel weighs in with his interpretation of the verdict.

Last December, the judge in the case ruled decisively in our favor on the issue of keywords. In her oral ruling, she stated that GEICO had failed to prove that using "GEICO" as a keyword to trigger ads was likely to confuse consumers. Then, earlier this month, she issued a written ruling explaining the reasoning behind the December ruling.

In her written ruling, she stated that GEICO's own evidence "refutes the allegation that the use of the trademark as a keyword, without more, causes a likelihood of confusion." That is a clear signal that Google's policy on trademarks and keywords is lawful.

What has generated the confusion is another part of the ruling, of little significance to Google, that relates to the use of "GEICO" in ad text. Google already has a policy that prohibits advertisers from using someone else's trademark in their ad text when the trademark owner objects