Winner: Follow up on my Shameless Plug Post

It never rains, but it pours; two blog posts in one night after the drought that was May.

So, following up on my Shameless Plug & Follow Up post where I asked you all to click on the link to my blog post for Latitude in the hope that if it was the post with the most hits on the Latitude blog for that month then I would win the prize for the monthly blogging competition......drum roll.......well thank you all very much indeed,  I won!  Even better, an earlier blog post which I'd penned for Latitude and which I'd cunningly linked to in the first (I don't work for a digital marketing agency for nothing) came second.  I won again!

I have donated my winnings from the competition to Save the Children.

Play the advantage

Working in the digital media industry I see first-hand every day the benefits to individuals and businesses from taking advantage of the newest technology, social media and web 2.0.  An industry was born of it, trailblazers lead it, those who participate in it are cutting-edge, engaged with their customers and reap the rewards.  They also have a bit of fun with it.

Hold on a minute….what was that you said?  What’s web 2.0?  Ah yes, social media it’s a risk isn’t it, you need rules to prevent your employees recklessly libelling their boss on Facebook. I don't give staff access to social media sites, its counter-productive.  I can’t Twitter, it would be a breach of confidentiality. Anyway, my firm has a website.

Sorry. I forgot. You’re a lawyer. Risk-averse.  You hear "social media". You think "policy". Go on, admit it.

So, I was delighted to read about this excellent symposium being organised by lawyers for lawyers.  It’s a fresh and quirky look at how technology is affecting the practice of law. Sessions include: “Up in the Air and the Cloud”,  ”Would Lincoln get Linked In? Or would he Tweet?” and, my personal favourite, “What’s your Avatar? How social media is changing the way we work and how to take advantage of it”.

If you're lucky enough to be attending this symposium, you just know you’re going to be able to listen to people excited about their subject and come away feeling inspired to get your personal lawyer brand online, out there and competing with the best of them.

Contrast those sessions with an in-house lawyer forum I’ve been invited to recently by a regional law firm. How could I not want to find out: “How to control social media in the workplace”, “How to prevent online defamation” and “How to control your risk online”. 

Yawn.

It gets worse.  An entirely separate conference I was invited to bears the ominous title “The Internet: What can go wrong and how to avoid it”.  It includes sessions entitled “An Online Survival Guide”, “Avoiding Problems” and “How to Perform a Legal Operation”. 

No, I don’t get the relevance of the last session either. But it’s a conference about the internet so….err…I guess it needs some scary sounding items that lawyers can warn their clients about.  Maybe the organiser got a byte from a mouse when he was younger. 

Anyway, I know which conference, I mean, symposium I’d rather be at.  Go on law firms, I dare you, when it comes to social media and web 2.0, be a trailblazer and get your profession excited about the possibilities new technology and media offer us; don’t blow the referee’s whistle, play the advantage. 

Shameless Plug & Follow-up

A shameless plug for the blog post which I wrote for Latitude earlier this week, Google off the hook, but is anyone else left on it? following the judgement from the ECJ on the 3 Google Adwords cases referred to it from the French courts.  Please click on the link, because if I'm the employee with the most clicks on  the Latitude blog this month I could win the monthly blogging competition :-)

Plug over.

Now for the follow-up:

Obviously this isn't the result which trademark proprietors were hoping for, and since writing that post I've seen a number of reports in the blogosphere suggesting that enforcement costs for protecting brands online will rocket (see in particular this post from World Trademark Review).  We'll just have to wait and see if the price per click of branded keywords does increase, but I think to say that the costs of enforcement will rocket is perhaps a knee-jerk reaction because:

(a)  What this judgement does is further clarify what type of activity does and doesn't constitute trademark infringement, and clarity can only be a good thing for all parties concerned, and so there should be, per se, less infringement.  When we have the ruling in M&S v Interflora, we'll have even more clarity.

(b) Doubtless there will be some advertisers who take advantge of the ruling, but likewise there will be those who don't.  For instance, in terms of online advertising, some sectors are more sensitive to searches against generic keywords rather than branded keywords (eg "car insurance").  Indeed, individual advertisers also take their own ethical stance in whether or not they use competitor's trademarked terms as keywords in their own advertising campaigns.

(c) What trademark owners should consider are the other ways in which they can boost their online presence, such as through improved content (price per click is not the only factor which affects the placement of a sponsored ad) and organic search results.

Lots of analysis and views to digest still, I particularly enjoyed reading Eric Goldman's analysis of the ruling Google gets favourable ECJ opinion, but will it prove a hollow victory? and IPKat's summary of comments on the 3 cases.

AdWords, Links & a Ticking Clock

I’ve been expecting 2010 to be a busy year for developments with the pending litigations relating to online infringement of brands when used as keywords to deliver sponsored search results, and yesterday I posted a blog for Latitude about it.  The purpose of that post was to bring non-lawyers up to speed with the topic but do feel free to comment there on any of the legal implications of these cases should the mood take you.  Meanwhile, here are a few useful legal links on the subject for the lawyers amongst you:

Eric Goldman’s Technology & Marketing Law Blog continues to be a first class source of updates on the US Google Adwords litigation; he is meticulously in backing up his blogs with a raft of legal sources and links and his comments are insightful both in terms of the legal ramifications and also in terms of well-spotted human-error and oddities (see his commentary on the Flowbee litigation linked below for a case in point).

Eric has recently blogged on the decision by Rescue.com to drop its lawsuit against Google (seemingly because of the duplicitous position which the plaintiff found itself in by arguing both sides of the coin in parallel lawsuits, and also because of the sheer length of time the dispute has now been dragging on for), the Jurin case (in which the keyword seller v advertising seller argument surfaces), and the transfer of the Flowbee litigation (by invoking the venue selection/governing jurisdiction provisions in its Adwords contract); and on top of all of that he also helpfully maintains a running record of all Adwords cases on the books in the US.

Moving to Europe, back in September 2009 the Attorney General gave his opinion on the 3 French Google Adwords cases which had been referred to the ECJ for judgement. The AG comes down on the side of the search-engines, a position which some commentators have referred to as a mistake, so we will have to wait and see how the ECJ ultimately rules. In addition, we’re expecting judgement on Interflora v M&S and L’Oreal v eBay from the ECJ. We are tantalisingly promised opinions in “early 2010”....tick tock tick tock...