Looks like another nail in the coffin of some of Ray Gordon's claims against Google
Paul Robinson
advertising when someone tries to look up "Geico" to competitors of
Geico. This kills yet another part of Gordon Roy Parker - alias Ray
Gordon - in his attempt to extort US$10 billion from Google.
http://news.com.com/Google+wins+in+trademark+suit+with+Geico/2100-1024_3-5491704.html
Google wins in trademark suit with Geico
Published: December 15, 2004, 10:40 AM PST
By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
update Google scored a big legal win Wednesday when a federal judge
ruled that its use of trademarks in keyword advertising is legal.
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia granted Google's motion to dismiss a
trademark-infringement complaint brought by Geico. The insurance company
had charged Google with violating its trademarks by using the word
"Geico" to trigger rival ads in sponsored search results. Geico claimed
the practice diluted its trademarks and caused consumer confusion.
The judge said that "as a matter of law it is not trademark infringement
to use trademarks as keywords to trigger advertising," said Michael
Page, a partner at Keker & Van Nest, which represented Google.
Brinkema ended the trial Wednesday to issue a formal opinion on the
matter. She also asked Google and Geico to settle a dispute over the use
of Geico's marks in text of rival ads appearing on the search engine's site.
The ruling is a triumph for Google in that it derives as much as 95
percent of its advertising revenue from keyword-triggered ads, which
appear next to Web search results. Trademarks play a central role to the
sale of such ads because people often use Web search to find products
and services with common, trademarked brand names such as Nike or Geico.
The ruling also could inform similar trademark-infringement cases
online, legal experts say. For example, Google is being sued by American
Blind and Wallpaper for trademark infringement by its keyword ad program.
"This could be a significant change in trademark law, making it harder
for trademark owners to enforce their marks in an online context," said
Terry Ross, an attorney at Gibson Dunn.
Until now, the odds appeared in Geico's favor.
Geico had filed suit in May against Google and Overture Service. In late
August, Brinkema denied Google and Overture's motion to dismiss six
charges brought by Geico, which claimed that use of its name to trigger
search-related ads was trademark infringement, unfair competition and
dilution of its marks under the Lanham Act. At the time, the judge
granted their motions to dismiss claims of tortious interference and
statutory business conspiracy.
On Nov. 19, Judge Brinkema denied Google's motion for summary judgment,
according to court documents.
Earlier this month, Geico settled its lawsuit with Overture. Terms of
the agreement were not disclosed.
Google called Wednesday's ruling a victory for consumers.
"It confirms that our policy complies with the law, particularly the use
of trademarks as keywords," said Google general counsel David Drummond.
"This is a clear signal to other litigants that our keyword policy is
lawful."
Krus T. Olfard
news:Ss6wd.6040$mn6.3337@trnddc07:
So much for someone's apparent idea of starting a new business with a $10
billion nestegg.
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
User3247
> So much for someone's apparent idea of starting a new business with a
> $10 billion nestegg.
As if that plan ever had a chance. Remember, this is "inexcusable failure"
boy we're talking about.
Ray Gordon
1. The issue of advertising for rival products was urged to be "settled" by
the judge. My suit is based on that aspect of it.
2. If one is allowed to purchase the trademarked terms of their rivals for
use in their advertising, then I'll have the same right to do it as my
competitors, including any seduction gurus (several of them have trademarked
terms as well).
I'll have to hop on pacer to get a copy of this ruling.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy any participating
affiliated book!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
"Paul Robinson" <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message
news:Ss6wd.6040$mn6.3337@trnddc07...
Paul Robinson
> Two things:
>
> 1. The issue of advertising for rival products was urged to be "settled" by
> the judge. My suit is based on that aspect of it.
We can guess the result. Based on your usual and customary history of
sloth, incompetence and inability, it will be dismissed.
> 2. If one is allowed to purchase the trademarked terms of their rivals for
> use in their advertising, then I'll have the same right to do it as my
> competitors, including any seduction gurus (several of them have trademarked
> terms as well).
And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the
express purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget. And as
long as they are not getting revenue from those click-thrus there is no
contractual obligation and thus no fraud issue. Nor could you even
prove it was happening, and you couldn't do a damn thing about it anyway.
Ray Gordon
>>
>> 1. The issue of advertising for rival products was urged to be "settled"
>> by the judge. My suit is based on that aspect of it.
>
> We can guess the result. Based on your usual and customary history of
> sloth, incompetence and inability, it will be dismissed.
Paul is not a lawyer, of course, and has no credibility on such matters.
>> 2. If one is allowed to purchase the trademarked terms of their rivals
>> for use in their advertising, then I'll have the same right to do it as
>> my competitors, including any seduction gurus (several of them have
>> trademarked terms as well).
>
> And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
> running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the express
> purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget.
Aside from trying to incite people to harm my business (not wise, and this
can happen to anyone), there are ways to set up ad programs on any search
engine so that no one ever knows I'm the one doing it.
In fact, anyone who wants to make money right now can just set up an
affiliate link, put up a site that redirects, buy terms, and let the
clickthroughs go straight to the affiliate site.
>And as long as they are not getting revenue from those click-thrus there is
>no contractual obligation and thus no fraud issue.
If the intent is to harm, there is a case.
>Nor could you even prove it was happening,
You'd be surprised at what some people brag about on mailing lists they
think I'm not watching.
>and you couldn't do a damn thing about it anyway.
You'd be surprised at the reasons people rat others out.
If my enemy's enemy is my friend, I have more friends than anyone on the
planet.
Krus T. Olfard
If ray actually started using Google ads to increase his revenue I
seriously doubt that many people would do as you suggest above.
And even if they did the ads might increase his income enough that it could
just be considered part of the cost of doing business - after all, every
Google click-through just has lookers, the same as any other kind of
internet advertising.
And if he had real business to take up his time he might stop posting in
here.
Krus T. Olfard
news:Lciwd.887$4u4.59@trndny01:
It looks like someone was just pushing your buttons and you responded in
the pre-programmed manner.
When you're that predictable your buttons will get pushed.
Ray Gordon
> running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the express
> purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget.
Are you saying that Google's advertising programs are vulnerable to this?
Since Google is a publicly-traded company, perhaps an investment group or
two should chime in with its knowledge.
Lord knows enough people own stock in Google.
Paul Robinson
>>>Two things:
>>>
>>>1. The issue of advertising for rival products was urged to be "settled"
>>>by the judge. My suit is based on that aspect of it.
>>
>>We can guess the result. Based on your usual and customary history of
>>sloth, incompetence and inability, it will be dismissed.
>
>
> Paul is not a lawyer, of course, and has no credibility on such matters.
Neither are you, on both counts. But, seeing as how every single
solitary time you have filed a case - without exception - it was
dismissed - ergo, you lost - it isn't hard to predict the same thing
happening again.
"You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
And I don't need to be a lawyer to know that your next case will be
dismissed, like all of the others.
>>>2. If one is allowed to purchase the trademarked terms of their rivals
>>>for use in their advertising, then I'll have the same right to do it as
>>>my competitors, including any seduction gurus (several of them have
>>>trademarked terms as well).
>>
>>And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
>>running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the express
>>purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget.
>
> Aside from trying to incite people to harm my business (not wise, and this
> can happen to anyone),
You don't know the first thing about law, so don't even pretend to claim
you are able to do so. I know what an incitement means, and pointing
out how stupid you are does not qualify as incitement. I simply pointed
out what could happen, I did not encourage anyone to do so.
> there are ways to set up ad programs on any search
> engine so that no one ever knows I'm the one doing it.
As soon as it gets out the links go to your site, people will notice.
> In fact, anyone who wants to make money right now can just set up an
> affiliate link, put up a site that redirects, buy terms, and let the
> clickthroughs go straight to the affiliate site.
Yeah. that's why you're broke.
>>And as long as they are not getting revenue from those click-thrus there is
>>no contractual obligation and thus no fraud issue.
>
> If the intent is to harm, there is a case.
Oh yeah, right, your spectacular successes in getting service on people
cause fear and trembling at the spectre of being named a defendant
against you. And you'd have to prove intent; just because you think
people did it to harm your so-called business doesn't mean they did, or
that you can prove it.
And you'd have to show that you had a business, not just your imaginary
flights of fancy. You'd have to open your books for inspection and it
would show that you do not have a business at all
>>Nor could you even prove it was happening,
>
> You'd be surprised at what some people brag about on mailing lists they
> think I'm not watching.
Because they know that you haven't got tbe balls, capacity or abiliy to
do a damn thing about it, presuming, of course, that they were
commenting about you.
>>and you couldn't do a damn thing about it anyway.
>
> You'd be surprised at the reasons people rat others out.
I'd be really surprised if anyone did anything on your behalf, unless it
was to recommend you for psychiatric committment.
> If my enemy's enemy is my friend, I have more friends than anyone on the
> planet.
The enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily one's friend. There can be
three or more sides to an issue. Just because someone doesn't like
someone that dislikes you, does not in any way infer or imply that they
would like you. Nor does it imply or suggest friendship.
The depths of your incompetence never ceases to amaze me.
Paul Robinson
>>And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
>>running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the express
>>purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget.
>
> Are you saying that Google's advertising programs are vulnerable to this?
There have been people who took ads on their site ads and hired people
in India, China and other really low-wage countries to do click-thrus in
order to increase the number of hits in order to get ad revenue. They
got caught. Whether it was just a civil suit, an expose, or a criminal
trial I can't remember offhand. Search "click through fraud" on Google
and you can find lots of articles, like these:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/security/0,39023764,39153875,00.htm
http://www.cardinalcollective.com/blog/archives/2004/05/000923.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19870
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Google-Sues-Over-Click-Fraud&story_id=28609
As it turns out, one guy that wrote a program to do automated
click-thrus tried to blackmail Gooogle, and was indicted.
> Since Google is a publicly-traded company, perhaps an investment group or
> two should chime in with its knowledge.
Doesn't matter, Google charges the advertiser; the advertiser pays
Google; then if they have to, they pay the third-party for the space.
Whether Google is selling its own space or selling someone else's, the
activity does not affect them and would not be a threat to their revenue
stream (that isn't a problem with all of their competitors as well)
since it's a problem that all companies that sell click-thru ad space
are aware of.
> Lord knows enough people own stock in Google.
You couldn't afford to own stock in Enron.
Ray Gordon
>>>running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the
>>>express purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget.
>>
>> Are you saying that Google's advertising programs are vulnerable to this?
>
> There have been people who took ads on their site ads and hired people in
> India, China and other really low-wage countries to do click-thrus in
> order to increase the number of hits in order to get ad revenue. They got
> caught. Whether it was just a civil suit, an expose, or a criminal trial
> I can't remember offhand. Search "click through fraud" on Google and you
> can find lots of articles, like these:
Gee, that must really suck for the advertisers, and for Google. Wonder what
they can do to fix this.
HC
>Paul is not a lawyer, of course, and has no credibility on such matters.
Porker, of course, is not only NOT a lawyer, but is also a mentally ill
newsloon, so therefore not only does he have no credibility on such matters, he
has even less than Paul.
And Porker has a thing on his lip.
>If my enemy's enemy is my friend, I have more friends than anyone on the
>planet.
Your enemy's enemy is your enemy, and your enemy's friend is your enemy.
Everybody is your enemy, shitball. You are a reprehenisble piece of shit that
nobody likes.
Have you told your mother yet what you are doing in her apartment?
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers, not a one." - Gordon
"Ray Gordon" Roy Parker, September 11, 2001, while the buildings were burning
HC
>Paul Robinson <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in
>news:U7iwd.7645$E_6.722@trnddc04:
>
>> Ray Gordon wrote:
>>
>>> Two things:
>>>
>>> 1. The issue of advertising for rival products was urged to be
>>> "settled" by the judge. My suit is based on that aspect of it.
>>
>> We can guess the result. Based on your usual and customary history
>> of sloth, incompetence and inability, it will be dismissed.
>>
>>> 2. If one is allowed to purchase the trademarked terms of their
>>> rivals for use in their advertising, then I'll have the same right to
>>> do it as my competitors, including any seduction gurus (several of
>>> them have trademarked terms as well).
>>
>> And you think you can afford it? Boy are you stupid. If you start
>> running ads on Google, people will start doing click-thrus for the
>> express purpose of costing you money by draining your ad budget. And
>> as long as they are not getting revenue from those click-thrus there
>> is no contractual obligation and thus no fraud issue. Nor could you
>> even prove it was happening, and you couldn't do a damn thing about it
>> anyway.
>
>If ray actually started using Google ads to increase his revenue I
>seriously doubt that many people would do as you suggest above.
Really? I would think that there is an entire cabal of people just waiting to
show Porker how much they appreciate his 9/11 rants and the rest of his
psychobabble.
Poor Ray, his past behavior prevents him from joining the mainstream. Again.
Freak.
Paul Robinson
They can watch for patterns in use of automated click-thru programs.
Catching hordes of low-paid Chinamen is another story. Some suggest
that there may be use of checking IP addresses and denying payment for
click-thrus (or denying connection) from sites outside the U.S.
Ray Gordon
>> what they can do to fix this.
>
> They can watch for patterns in use of automated click-thru programs.
> Catching hordes of low-paid Chinamen is another story. Some suggest that
> there may be use of checking IP addresses and denying payment for
> click-thrus (or denying connection) from sites outside the U.S.
Well you certainly have highlighted one major potential problem with
click-through advertising.
The solutions don't sound thrilling either.
JJT
>The solutions don't sound thrilling either.
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) wishing death on a child :
>>Path: news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news
>>Cc: cave...@nni.com
>>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:58:08 -0400
>>Subject: Ray Takes FULL RESPONSIBLITY For The Michelle Mistake
>>Message-ID: <20000628.075839.-285523.10.The...@juno.com>
>>X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11
>>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,6-9,17-18,20-21,29-30,40-41,48-49,61-62,71-72,84-85,94-95,105-106,
>>115-116,126-127,133-134,154-155,164-165,178-179,187-188,196-199,201-202,206-207,212-213,
>>215-216,219-220,222-226,228-231,237-238,241-246,249-250,257-258,264-265,274-275,289-290,293-300
>>X-Juno-Att: 0
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>From: The Seduction Library <the______seductio...@juno.com>
>>Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
>>Organization: mail...@nym.alias.net
>>Newsgroups: alt.romance
>>Lines: 307
>>Xref: news alt.romance:246369
>>WARNING: If Oedipus, Krusty or Tusky respond to this message in any way,
>>I will return to ASF immediately. If they want me off that newsgroup
>>they can stay the hell out of my threads.
>>Read up. I post this not for myself, because I don't care what people
>>think of me. I post this for my METHOD, because it's being destroyed by
>>attacks on its creator.
>>I am going to clear the record on a few things here:
>>1. I DID wish death on Michelle's daughter Cierra. I did so in an
>>attempt to snap her back to reality after she had used others' defamation
>>of me as leverage to get me to want her. Why did I "hurt" her? I DID
>>NOT TALK TO HER. That's correct: my crime with Michelle was not falling
>>back in love with her after she had fallen in love with me for four
>>months, IMing me constantly, E-mailing me constantly, BEGGING me to love
>>her the way I "loved" "Dominique" (these two are in quotes because I
>>neither loved her nor necessarily knew her).
>>2. Wishing death on someone is not a crime. The words were spoken in
>>anger, after MONTHS of provocation
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker stating women deserve to be raped & murdered :
>>From: r____a__...@juno.com (Outfoxing The Foxes)
>>Subject: Re: Need A Piece Of Advice
>>Date: 1998/11/02
>>Message-ID: <19981102.144604.2648...@juno.com>
>>Organization: mail...@nym.alias.net
>>Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
>>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-5,10-14,23-29,32-45,47-50,55-58,60-61,74-77,
>>79-87,95-97,99-102,105-112,121-122,130-131,138-139,146-147,
>>156-157,160-161,163-164,181-182,196-197,199
>>Newsgroups: alt.romance
>>Look at the way women treat "losers" and you will see
>>why they wind up beaten, murdered, raped, robbed, disrespected, and
>>oppressed. It is because women DESERVE it. The ones who harmed me
>>should thank their lucky stars that I didn't react like a primate and
>>just dump them six feet underground. Unfortunately, premeditated murder
>>would ruin this ethical thing I have going for me, although on a primal
>>level it is quite appealing.
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) on 9/11 :
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Not
a one."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"This attack happened in my HOMETOWN, a hometown I do not
live in or work in because of illegal behavior. I hope those
who swiped my ability to live there enjoy the message they got from GOD
today.........."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"In that building existed little more than a bunch of companies
which hire "office whores" and the like. I have no sympathy for
employment discriminators, and if someone had to die in this attack, I
couldn't think of a better group of people for the terrorists to pick."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
ARKADYA
>
>
>
>- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) wishing death on a child :
Let him wish death on whoever the F he wants. Why are you so worried about HIM.
Never Forgive, Never Forget
9-11-01
HC
>>>The solutions don't sound thrilling either.
>>
>>
>>
>>- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) wishing death on a child :
>
>Let him wish death on whoever the F he wants. Why are you so worried about
>HIM.
Since you propose letting your smelly sock friend do whatever the F he wants to
do, why the F are YOU so worried about JJT? Why not follow your own advice
numbskull, and let JJT post whatever the F HE wants to?
Fucking hypocrite sock scum.
JJT
>Fucking hypocrite sock scum.
Buckfush666, Chris Raven, and Jim Summers..
Loser attempts at not being Ray Gordon..
Cowards hiding behind excuses and deep fears..
Can't find sources of clean, dry underwear..
Just sock-puppet jokes..
Pretending not to be Ray Gordon
I laugh all night 'cause they're such lame ass folks....
Can't grow up, though they really should
Sock-puppet jokes..(Sock-puppet jokes)
Sock-puppet jokes..(Sock-puppet jokes)
They just show up when Parker capitulate(s)
<wah wah wah WAH-OOOOOO!>
Cause he fails, they just play catch-up-2-late
<wah wah wah WAH-OOOOOO!>
Lose the battle, so cue the lame insults..
<insert loud guitar noise here>
Can't win the war, so retreat to the cheap seats..
Just sock-puppet jokes..
Pretending not to be Ray Gordon
Laugh all night 'cause they're such lame ass folks....
Can't grow up, though they really should
Sock-puppet jokes..(Sock-puppet jokes)
Sock-puppet jokes..(Sock-puppet jokes)
They go crazy 'cause he's Inexcusable, & failure's bitch..
<wah wah wah WAH-OOOOOO!>
Has to spew hate when he gets that child molesting "..wish.."
<wah wah wah WAH-OOOOOO!>
Life's real lame, sponging off mommie and dollies..
<insert drum noise here>
So lonely, all REAL women laughing at grp-ie....
Just sock-puppet jokes..
Pretending not to be Ray Gordon
Laugh all night 'cause they're such lame ass folks....
Can't grow up, though they really should
Sock-puppet jokes..(Sock-puppet jokes)
Sock-puppet jokes..(Sock-puppet jokes)
JJT
>Never Forgive, Never Forget
"..come to me mother, of anyone's child..
..and tell me the revelry planned.."
I will forever hold that child molester
to his threats, lies, "..wishes.." and
hate speech on 9/11 as long as I live..
Like YOU said..
Never Forgive, Never Forget
JJT
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Not
a one."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"This attack happened in my HOMETOWN, a hometown I do not
live in or work in because of illegal behavior. I hope those
who swiped my ability to live there enjoy the message they got from GOD
today.........."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"In that building existed little more than a bunch of companies
which hire "office whores" and the like. I have no sympathy for
employment discriminators, and if someone had to die in this attack, I
couldn't think of a better group of people for the terrorists to pick."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"Now you know what it's like to see your horrors mocked the way mine
have been. That's not mental illness, that's a political message,
apparently delivered quite brilliantly."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Their own
evil is what prevented me from being among the dead, and which added the
"Unknown Office Whore" to their numbers because god forbid some loser
executive would have to hire a man.Those corporations could have hired
me, put me to work in that building, let me live in NYC, and experience
all of the fun that's going on up there now."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
aardvark9084
"JJT" <jtas...@jtaspamsucksshjian.com> wrote in message
news:35v8s0992o2q47s3l...@4ax.com...
>
> >Fucking hypocrite sock scum.
>
the hit parade goes on. "the worst of ray gordon" available by k-tel
records.
for those of you out of the loop:
ray recently complained that he was illegally "spidered" by google's bot.
gordon roy parker thinks he's peter parker. hehehehe
you could say he's a "spidered man"
with apologies to bob harris, the creator of the theme song.
<i may also have to eventually beg for stan lee's forgiviness, but it was
for a good cause mr. lee>
spidered man - by aardvark
spidered man, spidered man
wants 10 billion clams from a google scam
spouts his rants, full of lies
opens his mouth, catches flies
look out, ray thinks he's spidered man
is he dumb, listen schmuck
his seduction advice, boy does it suck
blames the dog when he wets the bed
got a big ole' gumby head
hey there, there lumbers the spidered man
up and typing each night
his whole life is a crime
yeah, he's not too bright
only bitches, threatens, and whines
spidered man, spidered man
neighborhood menace from a garbage can
wealth and fame, (yeah he wished)
fed his only date, canned tuna fish
got a bent head all full of hang ups
whole lot of sexual hangups
usenet's ignorant-assed spidered man
aardvark