The Mac Observer

Skip navigational links

Choose text size: Select small text. Select medium text. Select large text.

You're viewing an article in TMO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site:
Yahoo! Sued Over Google AdWords

Yahoo! Sued Over Google AdWords

by , 9:50 AM EDT, June 16th, 2006

Colorado-based JP Enterprises filed a suit against Internet search service Yahoo! for purchasing AdWord advertising on Google to draw consumers to Yahoo!-based services. JPEnterprises owns the lovecity online dating service, and claims that Yahoo! placed keywords in Google AdWords advertising in an effort to draw consumers to its own online dating services, according to the Denver Post.

HDVE LLC and Spark Networks were also named in the suit.

Google offers a sponsored advertising feature called AdWords. By including appropriate keywords, an advertiser's link appears at the top of a search results page. Even though sponsored links are clearly marked, some users may not realize that they are not regular search results.

Google and Yahoo! are competitors in the Internet search engine market, and competition between the companies has been on the rise. Both have expanded beyond basic search features and offer news, email, and other free services to draw viewers to their sites. Purchasing advertising on a rival's Web site, however, wasn't exactly an expected move.

Both companies own other businesses geared towards enhancing their own services. Google, for example, recently purchased SketchUp, and now offers a free version of the software for personal use and creating Google Earth 3D images. Among its assets, Yahoo! owns online dating services.

As noted by a reader in the comments below, JP Enterprises appears to have taken exception to the fact that "lovecity," "www.lovecity," and "lovecity.com" were all among the AdWords purchased by Yahoo! at Google.

Yahoo! and HDVE LLC were not available for comment. Spark Networks is not commenting on the case.

Observer Comments

Show: Subjects Only | Full Comments
Close Name:geoduck Posts: 1922 Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:47 am Subject:

Let's see, Yahoo bought an ad on Google to get customers for a Yahoo service. This is what Advertising is for. JP didn't think of it first and is pissed. OK but I don't think they have a case any more than if someone bought the word airline before Orbits or Delta did.


 Reply | Quote
Close Name:Biff Posts: 1479 Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:56 am Subject: Dumb

This is an outrage! We must act now to legally limit where companies may advertise! We must stifle competition immediately or face losing those companies which have inferior products!

I don't see where this would be illegal. It's up to Google to choose who they wish to do business with. It sounds like Yahoo probably used some other entintity to slip the advertising past Google's staff, but so what. Companies do stuff like that all the time. But hey I'm sure I'm missing some details here, so we'll see what happens.


 Reply | Quote
Close Name:brett_x Posts: 322 Joined: 24 Jan 2006
Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:10 am Subject: I don't get it

Maybe I am missing something... What are they suing about?

[edit]

Oh, I'm not missing anything.. The Article is missing key information. Now that I read the linked article, I understand the suit.

Quote
A Colorado company that owns dating website lovecity.com has sued Yahoo, claiming the Internet giant improperly used a trademark domain name to direct consumers looking for lovecity on Google to Yahoo's dating site...

...Yahoo inserted keywords including lovecity, www.lovecity and lovecity.com into its AdWords advertising, according to the suit.


C'mon TMO.. this information would have been very helpful in the original article.


 Reply | Quote
Close Name:dhp Posts: 182 Joined: 22 May 2003
Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:41 pm Subject: re: I don't get it

Quote
brett_x wrote:
Maybe I am missing something... What are they suing about?


Oh, I'm not missing anything.. The Article is missing key information. Now that I read the linked article, I understand the suit.


Thanks, brett_x, I was completely confused as well.


 Reply | Quote
Close Name:Biff Posts: 1479 Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:15 pm Subject:

Quote
Biff wrote:
But hey I'm sure I'm missing some details here, so we'll see what happens.
Ding! That changes things significantly!


 Reply | Quote
Close Name:akcarver Posts: 144 Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:42 pm Subject: Yahoo's so screwed on this

Quote
brett_x wrote:
Maybe I am missing something... What are they suing about?

[edit]

Oh, I'm not missing anything.. The Article is missing key information. Now that I read the linked article, I understand the suit.

Quote
A Colorado company that owns dating website lovecity.com has sued Yahoo, claiming the Internet giant improperly used a trademark domain name to direct consumers looking for lovecity on Google to Yahoo's dating site...

...Yahoo inserted keywords including lovecity, www.lovecity and lovecity.com into its AdWords advertising, according to the suit.


C'mon TMO.. this information would have been very helpful in the original article.


This is such a CLEAR violation, I'll be amazed if someone doesn't get fired.


 Reply | Quote
Close Name:Champ Posts: 5 Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:29 am Subject: interesting

I remember reading something about a Paint Company that sue Google over a trademark name. The main complaint was that when you type in the trademark name, not only did the trademark name company appear, all its competitors website also appeared. The courts ruled that the trademark was not being infringed on.

The other point is what if yahoo used just the words: Love, City, Website, Com, Dating, and Sex. Whould it still infringe on Love City tradmark? Love, City and website as key word search would produce LoveCity and Yahoo dating service and most likely other dating services. If you say yes, then is Love and City tradmarks of LoveCity.com in which no one can use it.

Very interesting!


 Reply | Quote
Close Name:Bryan -   TMO Staff Posts: 7340 Joined: 11 Jun 2001
Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:21 pm Subject:

Thanks for keeping us on our toes, brett_x! The story has been edited to reflect this key bit of information.

Bryan
Editor
TMO


 Reply | Quote
Comment on this Article


Guest Posts Visible. Hide Them.
Back to top  Page 1 of 1    

You cannot edit your comments.   You cannot delete your comments.

Comments are currently closed. Please email the author instead.


Recent Headlines - Updated July 6th

Fri, 10:29 AM
News - Apple Warns of Learning Interchange Security Breach
7:30 AM
News - Happy Fourth of July!
Thu, 6:07 PM
TMO Scoop - Psystar Moves to Drop Bankruptcy Ahead of Apple Legal Battle
5:37 PM
News - Uncomfirmed Reports Say Apple & Nvidia On The Outs
4:57 PM
News - Microsoft Sick Over Barf Ad
4:09 PM
Product News - KRK Ships R6 Passive Studio Monitor for Recording
3:45 PM
John Martellaro's Blog - Particle Debris (week ending 7/2)  Juiced, Joost and Goosed
3:12 PM
Product News - ExactScan 2 Pro Released
1:56 PM
Deal Brothers - Apple TV with 160GB Hard Drive:  $324.00 Delivered
12:46 PM
TMO Appearances - TMO Appearances Jeff Gamet Shares iPhone Apps on MacJury
10:41 AM
Product News - Art Text 2.2 Adds New Templates, Layer Options [Updated]
10:04 AM
Hot Forum Topic - Deciphering Mac Sales

The Mac Observer Reader Specials
  • __________
  • Buy Stuff, Support TMO!
  • Podcast: Mac Geek Gab
  • Podcast: Apple Weekly Report
  • TMO on Twitter!