If the advertiser is using the trademark in ad text, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademark and prevent them from using it in ad text in the future. Please note that we will not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint.

Lets say you run a company called "Bob's Auto Supply" and your competitor Jim runs a company called "Jim's AutoWorld." Jim buys a google ad on the keyword "Bob's Auto Supply" which directs people to his business. Jim is attempting to use your trademark and brand recognition to drive traffic to his competing business. He is basically stealing your advertising. Apparently, however, this matter was litigated and Google won. So there is no recourse under U.S. law. The theory is that web users would know that Jim is your competitor. The problem with that theory is that the value of your brand is being diluted. Its the name recognition that you have built that drives people to his advertisement.

What an awesome system we have. I can't deal with what is a blatent attempt to profit from a brand I'm trying to build, and yet a friend of mine was successfully prevented from using a bank's logo in an informational blog posting due to a broken normative use precident that states that only the minimum amount of the trademark necessary may be used.

If I am using a trademark in a nominal way it shouldn't be a problem regardless of what I'm doing. If I'm attempting to profit from someone else's advertising expenditures I'm commiting a crime. This seems real simple and I don't understand why our courts have gotten it so completely wrong.

Google's broken Trademark precedent