Facing a barrage of criticism in the wake of an Examiner report that Google had blocked negative ads at its request, MoveOn.org backed down earlier this week, withdrawing its claim of trademark infringement and renouncing the Google policy it had exploited to preemptively block the ads.

The ads, critical of the “General Betray Us” message MoveOn placed in The New York Times last month, were placed by the campaign of Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

When asked to comment, Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich said, “MoveOn was one of several trademark owners to have a standing request” and, when the ad came to Google’s attention, the request was acted upon. Kovacevich later acknowledged he does not actually know how many other trademark owners have such a “standing request” on file with Google.

A review of official policies on the Google Web site makes it difficult to understand just how MoveOn made its request in the first place. Google’s “Trademark Complaint Procedures” refers to complaints about existing ads, but there is no mention of “standing requests” and no means to file one.

This story continues below
Advertisement

The procedures Web page links to an online “Trademark Complaint Form,” but that’s limited to use by a trademark owner with an “objection to an advertiser’s use of a term corresponding to [their] trademark in ad text.”

Kovacevich said the form is both a way for trademark owners to file a complaint about an existing ad and a way for them to place a “standing request.” Citing a section of the form titled “Scope of Complaint — Advertisers Involved” where the trademark owner can check a box indicating the complaint against “all advertisers” or “specific advertisers,” he said that checking the box would block all future uses of a trademarked term for all advertisers.

However, the “Trademark Complaint Procedures” and “Trademark Complaint Form” do not say anything about “standing requests.” The language used throughout the form makes reference only to complaints filed for existing ads.

The “Legal Affirmations” section of the form reads: “IMPORTANT: Please note that we cannot investigate your complaint if you do not check both boxes” where the first box reads: “I have a good faith belief that use of the trademarks described above with the advertisements described above are not authorized by the trademark owner or its agent, nor is such use otherwise permissible under law.”

So Google’s explanations raise more questions than they answer:

Since Google’s ad system auto-rejects “banned” terms and Google claims the ad was removed due a “standing request,” how was the Collins-MoveOn ad able to run for three days?

And if there was human intervention, what prompted it after three days?

Since neither Google nor MoveOn now claims the Collins campaign violated the intellectual property rights of MoveOn, on what basis does Google justify informing the Collins campaign the ad violated Google policy?

How could MoveOn have a “good faith belief” that the nominative use of its trademark in Collins’ campaign ads was not “otherwise permissible under law” if it filed its complaint before the ad even ran?

How could MoveOn have ever had such a “good faith belief” when it has publicly stated that the use of its trademark in the

Collins-MoveOn ad was permissible?

If MoveOn was required to check the “good faith” box in order for Google to investigate a complaint, and MoveOn could not have made such an affirmation prior to seeing the ad, then on what basis was the ad investigated?

Rather than continue to attempt to justify a bad policy, perhaps Google will consider amending it instead. After clearing up the “standing request” issue, Google can maintain its existing trademark policy with regard to commercial advertisements — ads for the sale of good and services. But Google should make the following changes:

» Prohibit trademark owners from asserting trademark protection when the trademark is for a person’s name.

» Prohibit political parties, campaigns, PACs, 527s, 501(c)4s and other advocacy organizations from placing “standing requests” to block the nominative, non infringing use of their name in the text of ads.

» To prevent abuse, offer parties in a trademark dispute an alternative resolution process in the context of elections and campaign ads.

Google ought to be able to come up with a policy that both protects the legitimate interest of trademark owners and affords advocacy groups and political campaigns the right to criticize companies and organizations by name.

Robert Cox is a member of The Examiner’s Board of Bloggers and is president and founder of the Media Bloggers Association.