<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.6" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Brand Protection Online: Do(n&#8217;t) Google Ads Constitute Commercial Use Of A Trademark On Gripe Sites?</title>
	<link>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Mon,  8 Sep 2008 03:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.6</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: galaxy casino</title>
		<link>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-23329</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 05:35:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-23329</guid>
					<description>&lt;strong&gt;galaxy casino&lt;/strong&gt;

brick:Furman enmity hinged.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>galaxy casino</strong></p>
<p>brick:Furman enmity hinged.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tom Crandall</title>
		<link>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-9181</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:05:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-9181</guid>
					<description>Meredith,

Thanks for your comment.  The issue here is the owner of the gripe site generating ad revenue on a trademarked domain--www.uopsucks.com.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Meredith,</p>
<p>Thanks for your comment.  The issue here is the owner of the gripe site generating ad revenue on a trademarked domain&#8211;www.uopsucks.com.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: paisley</title>
		<link>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-9140</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-9140</guid>
					<description>i totally agree.. it's about time!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i totally agree.. it&#8217;s about time!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Meredith</title>
		<link>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-9133</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:17:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-9133</guid>
					<description>I don't understand why this would be considered commercial use. Isn't it also considered non-commercial fair use for an ad-supported newspaper to publish a negative article about a brand? 

I'm not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that even writing a book about a brand and selling it would not be considered commercial use, as long as the author/publisher is clear on the fact that it is not authorized, and is not attempting to use the brand to sell a competing product or create consumer confusion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t understand why this would be considered commercial use. Isn&#8217;t it also considered non-commercial fair use for an ad-supported newspaper to publish a negative article about a brand? </p>
<p>I&#8217;m not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that even writing a book about a brand and selling it would not be considered commercial use, as long as the author/publisher is clear on the fact that it is not authorized, and is not attempting to use the brand to sell a competing product or create consumer confusion.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tom Crandall</title>
		<link>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-8947</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-8947</guid>
					<description>Jeff,

It is common sense for most people to react with your question.  The reality, thus far, lies in Google's ability to circumvent any shred of responsibility--they have successfully been able to argue that they are not responsible for what other entities do with their technology

The funniest part of this argument is Google is making millions on this activity annually and yet their motto is "don't be evil."  Uh... "don't be evil unless we profit from it" is more accurate.
Tom</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeff,</p>
<p>It is common sense for most people to react with your question.  The reality, thus far, lies in Google&#8217;s ability to circumvent any shred of responsibility&#8211;they have successfully been able to argue that they are not responsible for what other entities do with their technology</p>
<p>The funniest part of this argument is Google is making millions on this activity annually and yet their motto is &#8220;don&#8217;t be evil.&#8221;  Uh&#8230; &#8220;don&#8217;t be evil unless we profit from it&#8221; is more accurate.<br />
Tom
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: jeff G</title>
		<link>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-8842</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:49:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-8842</guid>
					<description>Why isn't Google at least partly culpable for these criminal operations?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why isn&#8217;t Google at least partly culpable for these criminal operations?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: isedb.com</title>
		<link>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-8802</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:45:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.semreportcard.com/brand-protection-online-dont-google-ads-constitute-commercial-use-of-a-trademark-on-gripe-sites/#comment-8802</guid>
					<description>&lt;strong&gt;Brand Protection Online: Do(n’t) Google Ads Constitute Commercial Use Of A Trademark On Gripe Sites?&lt;/strong&gt;

It is legal to register a trademarked domain and publish a website on the domain if it is non-commercial in nature–think review sites, gripe sites, fan sites. An example would be Walmartwatch.com, a Wal-Mart gripe site published by Five Stones and Th...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Brand Protection Online: Do(n’t) Google Ads Constitute Commercial Use Of A Trademark On Gripe Sites?</strong></p>
<p>It is legal to register a trademarked domain and publish a website on the domain if it is non-commercial in nature–think review sites, gripe sites, fan sites. An example would be Walmartwatch.com, a Wal-Mart gripe site published by Five Stones and Th&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
