Consider télécharger poker texas holdem en ligne jeux de carte quelles mains jouer au poker je de poker gratuites jouer argent poker

Would you agree that companys spend a lot of money to brand their products and/or services?

Me, too. It is not only unethical, but unfair (illegal) for a third party (Google, in this case) to use a trademark holder’s heavily vested “name” to engage in commerce.

This is why trademarks exist–to protect the owner(s) of a successful company, product, or service, who has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect their creation. The attempt by direct and non-direct competitors to steal traffic with paid search engine ads on an unrelated trademark is called “Brand Siphoning.”

The problem that brands face today is trying to police all this infringement through their in-house legal practitioners. True, when I instruct a client’s attorney to send a C&D (Cease & Desist letter) to a direct/indirect competitor running ads on the client’s trademark, they are gone in short order. But this nonsense is costing corporations millions which I will allude to next month with the debut of my “Google Compensatory Damages Calculator.”

I have never searched “Dodge trucks” in Google to find a Ford–in fact my brand loyalty is so strong with Dodge I would be annoyed to see a Ford advertisement for this search.  Ford understands this, that is why they don’t advertise on Dodge-related searches, and vice-versa. 

This brings us to generic searches–what visitors search for when they are unsure of a specific brand they are looking for.

What do you do for a living, marksman?