Google still leads by a major margin in search industry

Google still leads with a whopping 58% searches done by all US internet users according to comcore month report published this december 2007

comScore Core Search Report*December 2007Total U.S. – Home/Work/University LocationsSource: comScore qSearch 2.0

Core Search Entity
Share of Searches (%)
Nov-07
Dec-07
Point Change Dec-07 vs. Nov-07

Total Core Search
100.0%
100.0%
0.0
Google Sites
58.6%
58.4%
-0.2

Yahoo! Sites
22.4%
22.9%
0.5

Microsoft Sites
9.8%
9.8%
0.0

Time Warner Network
4.5%
4.6%
0.1

Ask Network
4.6%
4.3%
-0.3

* Based on the five major search engines including partner searches and cross-channel searches. Searches for mapping, local directory, and user-generated video sites that are not on the core domain of the five search engines are not included in the core search numbers.
Americans conducted 9.6 billion searches at the core search engines, representing a 3.9-percent decline versus November. With many Americans traveling and spending time away from home during the holidays, search activity typically experiences a seasonal decline during December. Google Sites saw 5.6 billion core searches during the month, while Yahoo! Sites recorded 2.2 billion.
comScore Core Search Report*December 2007Total U.S. – Home/Work/University LocationsSource: comScore qSearch 2.0
Core Search Entity
Search Queries (MM)

Nov-07
Dec-07
Percent Change Dec-07 vs. Nov-07

Total Core Search
10,030
9,636
-3.9%

Google Sites
5,882
5,629
-4.3%

Yahoo! Sites
2,249
2,211
-1.7%

Microsoft Sites
984
940
-4.5%

Time Warner Network
453
442
-2.6%

Ask Network
463
415
-10.3%

First win over trademark infringement in Google adwords

As far as I know this seem to be the first win over trademark issue in google adwords PPC advertising programme, A company named Storus sued Aroa for using their trademark in online advertising campaign.

Document says

“1. Aroaa.

a. Undisputed Facts4Aroa sells “money clip products” under the mark Steinhausen, (see Andara Decl.,filed December 28, 2007, Ex. E at 59), on the website steinhausenonline.com, (see id.Ex. G). From 1998 to January 2001, Aroa also sold, pursuant to an agreement with Storus, Storus’ Smart Money Clip. (See Kaminski Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)

Google Inc., an internet search engine, operates an advertising program titled”AdWords,” under which an account holder can “create ads and choose keywords.” (SeeChoi Decl., filed December 28, 2007, ¶ 4.) Under this program, “[w]hen people search on Google using one of the account holder’s keywords, the account holder’s ad may appear next to the search results, and people can then click on the account holder’s ad.” (See id.)Aroa, an AdWords account holder, chose various keywords for inclusion in the program, including “smart money clip,” and provided Google with an ad to be generated when a usersearched using any of the chosen keywords. (See id. Ex. B at 3, 5.) In particular, under the AdWords program, if a consumer searched on Google for the phrase “smart money//Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 6 of 12
5Storus asserts, and defendants do not dispute, that defendants stopped using “smart money clip” as a keyword in the AdWorks program at some point after the instant action was filed. Consistent with Storus’ assertion, documents produced by Google, in the instant action, refer to the “status” of Aroa’s keyword “smart money clip” as “paused,” as opposed to “active.” (See Choi Decl. Ex. G at 5.)7clip,” the following Aroa ad may appear on the results page:Smart Money Cliphttp://www.steinhausenonline Elegant Steinhausen accessories. Perfect to add toany collection.(See Andara Decl. Ex. G.)5 The “Smart Money Clip” portion of the ad is underlined and setforth in a larger font than that used in the rest of the text in the ad. (See id.)

During the period from November 13, 2006 to October 12, 2007, the above advertisement was displayed 36,164 times in response to a search for “smart money clip,”and such displays resulted in 1,374 “clicks,” i.e., the consumer “clicked on [Aroa’s] ad after viewing the page where it was displayed.” (See Choi Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B at 4-5; Andara Decl.Ex. E. at STOR00673-74.)

b. Analysis

In light of the above undisputed facts, the Court finds Aroa used a mark identical to Storus’ mark with respect to the same type of product, a money clip, and that both Storus and Aroa marketed their respective money clip products over the internet. Defendants’ argument, that the first of the “factors of the internet trilogy,” similarity of the marks,nevertheless weighs in Aroa’s favor, is unpersuasive. Although, as defendants point out,Aroa’s Google ad includes a reference to Aroa’s mark “Steinhausen,” the subject ad, as noted, begins with a mark identical to Storus’ mark, underlined, and in a font size larger than that used for any other text in the ad. Defendants appear to argue that consumers would know Steinhausen is the mark of a company different from that of the company owning the Smart Money Clip mark, and, thus, if consumers proceed to Aroa’s site, the consumers would not be confused as to the source. Defendants offer no evidence,however, to support such a finding. Moreover, even if such evidence had been offered,defendants’ argument would be unavailing. As noted, under the “initial interest confusion”Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 7 of 121
6Defendants rely on the concurring opinion in Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F. 3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004), in which Judge Berzon expressed concern that Brookfield was “wrongly decided” and “may one day, if not now, need toreconsidered en banc.” See id. at 1035. Nevertheless, this Court is bound by Brookfield.Moreover, Judge Berzon’s concern pertained to application of the holding in Brookfield to adefendant who, having used the plaintiff’s mark as a keyword, causes consumers to viewan internet ad “clearly labeled” as an ad for the defendant. See id. This concern is inapplicable to the instant matter; Aroa’s advertisement is not “clearly labeled” as an ad for Aroa, given that the largest words in the advertisement consist of a mark identical to Storus’ mark.8theory of trademark liability, “source confusion” need not occur; rather, in the internet context, the wrongful act is the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s mark to “divert” consumers to a website that “consumers know” is not Storus’ website. See Brookfield, 174 F. 3d at1062.6

Accordingly, the Court finds no triable issue of fact exists with respect to any of the three “factors of the internet trilogy,” each of which weighs in favor of Storus. SeePerfumebay.com, 506 F. 3d at 1174. Consequently, the burden shifts to defendants tooffer evidence to support a finding that the remaining factors “weigh strongly against alikelihood of confusion.” See id. at 1174-75.

In that regard, defendants offer no evidence to show a lack of actual initial interest confusion. The only evidence relevant to this factor is offered by Storus, specifically, undisputed evidence that during the period from November 13, 2006 to October 12, 2007, when Aroa’s ad appeared thousands of times in response to searches for “smart moneyclip,” such ad generated 1,374 “clicks.” (See Choi Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B at 4-5; Andara Decl. Ex.E. at STOR00673-74.) In other words, on 1,374 occasions, consumers who were searching for a website by using Storus’ mark were, in fact, “diverted” to an Aroa website selling money clips that compete with Storus’ money clips. Such diversion constitutes the “initial interest confusion” prohibited by the Lanham Act. See Brookfield, 174 F. 3d at 1062,1065.

Defendants offer no evidence as to their intent in selecting Storus’ mark as akeyword in Google’s AdWords program. Again, the only evidence relevant to such factor isoffered by Storus, specifically, evidence that Aroa, before it began using “smart money clip” Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 8 of 12
7The Court makes the same finding irrespective of whether the Court employs aburden-shifting approach as set forth in Interstellar Starship and Perfumebay.com, orconsiders each factor without burden-shifting. See, e.g., Playboy Enterprises, 354 F. 3d at1026-29. As discussed above, the only evidence offered with respect to five of the Sleekcraft factors is undisputed and each such factor weighs in favor of Storus; defendantsconcede a sixth factor weighs in favor of Storus; a seventh factor is of little importance; and the eighth factor is irrelevant.9as a keyword in Google’s AdWords program, had actual knowledge that Storus used the mark “Smart Money Clip” to market money clips. (See Kaminski Decl. ¶ 7.)

With respect to the strength of the Smart Money Clip mark, defendants rely on their argument that Storus’ mark is descriptive and, consequently, weak. “Whether the mark is weak or not is of little importance,” however, “where the conflicting mark is identical and the goods are closely related,” see Brookfield, 174 F. 3d at 1059 (internal quotation and citationomitted), which is precisely the situation presented herein.

Defendants concede the “degree of consumer care” favors Storus, because “consumer care for inexpensive products is expected to be quite low.” (See Defs.’ Opp. at14:25-27.) The remaining factor, “likelihood of expansion,” is, in the instant case,”irrelevant” because the goods sold by the plaintiff and the defendant are “related.” See Playboy Enterprises, 354 F. 3d at 1029.

In sum, there is no triable issue with respect to any of the three “factors of the internet trilogy,” and defendants have failed, on behalf of Aroa, to make any showing, let alone the requisite “strong” showing, that the remaining factors weigh against a finding of alikelihood of confusion. Under the circumstances, the Court finds Storus has shown no material issue exists as to a likelihood of confusion by reason of Aroa’s having used Google’s AdWords program in the above-described manner.72. Skymalla.

Undisputed Facts

Skymall sells products to consumers through its website, http://www.skymall. (SeeAndara Decl. Ex. M, last page, unnumbered.) The products sold thereon include “apparel,business accessories, computer products, electronic equipment, automobile accessories,Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 9 of 12
8Watte’s deposition was taken September 19, 2007. She also testified that “thesearch functionality [of Skymall’s search engine] has been enhanced so that [customerservice employees] can locate products easier.” (See id. Ex. N at 20:4-8.)10gift items, collectable items, housewares, home-furnishings, personal-hygiene products,health-care products, fitness products, food items, pet accessories, travel accessories,seasonal items, gift-certificates and other general merchandise.” (See Schewe Decl., filed January 11, 2008, Ex. 2 at 8.) Skymall’s website has a search engine that consumers canuse to search the Skymall website. (See Andara Decl. Ex. M at 93:21-23.) Among the products Skymall has sold are “Gadget Universe” money clips supplied by Aroa. (See id.Ex. L at 13:3-14, 54:12-15, 84:11-19; Ex. M, last unnumbered page.) On July 14, 2005,Skymall, on its website, offered for sale a Gadget Universe money clip; the description ofsaid product included, in two places, the phrase “smart money clip.” (See id. Ex. M at91:21-92:10.)

b. Other Evidence

At his deposition, Skymall’s Chief Financial Officer, Dick Larson (“Larson”), was asked whether, if a consumer used Skymall’s search engine to search for the term “SmartMoney Clip,” a webpage showing one of Aroa’s money clips would come up; Larsonresponded, “I would expect [Aroa’s] product to come up.” (See id. Ex. M at 94:10-12.) Ather deposition, Skymall’s Customer Service Manager, Jeanette Watte (“Watte”), was asked, “[I]f you typed in ‘Smart Money Clip,’ do you believe that based on that searchengine it would bring you [Aroa’s] product”; Watte responded, “Today it would, probably.”(See id. Ex. N at 19:23-20:2.)8

c. Analysis

With respect to Skymall, Storus’ theory of liability is that if a consumer enters the phrase “smart money clip” in Skymall’s search engine, the consumer would be directed to apage, in what is essentially an electronic catalog, on which Skymall offers for sale an Aroamoney clip and on which the words “smart money clip” appear in conjunction with such offer. Put another way, its is Storus’ theory that when a consumer asks if Skymall offers aCase 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 10 of 12

9A defendant can only be liable for trademark infringement if it engages in anunconsented “use” of another’s mark. See 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). Such “use,” in a claim ofthe type alleged against Skymall, could be proved, e.g., by evidence showing the defendant directs a consumer who searches for “smart money clip” to a webpage on which it offers acompeting money clip, and where that page contains the phrase “smart money clip,” either expressly stated thereon or in a metatag. Here, Storus offers no evidence as to how Skymall’s search engine works; specifically, Storus offers no evidence, or even argues, that Skymall’s search engine directs a searching consumer to its pages based on metatags found on those pages, or by some similar mechanism not visible to the consumer by which Skymall itself makes “use” of the mark “smart money clip.” Consequently, based on the record before the Court, Storus can only establish the requisite “use” if it proves Skymall’s search engine directs a consumer searching for “smart money clip” to a page in its catalog that expressly contains the phrase “smart money clip.”11″Smart Money Clip,” Skymall answers, “yes,” and directs the consumer to a page offeringan Aroa money clip. Relying on a claim of initial interest confusion under Brookfield andthe above-described deposition testimony offered by Larson and Watte, Storus arguessuch theory can be established as a matter of law. The Court disagrees.

Although Skymall conceded having, on July 14, 2005, a webpage containing the phrase “smart money clip” in a description of an Aroa money clip, Skymall has not conceded that, at that time, a consumer who entered “smart money clip” in the Skymall search engine would have been directed to that particular page. All that Skymall conceded,in the above-referenced deposition testimony, is that at present or, at best, at some unspecified time, if a consumer were to enter “smart money clip” in Skymall’s searchengine, the consumer would likely be directed to a webpage depicting an Aroa product.9Critically, Storus points to no concession by Skymall that such a consumer would bedirected to a page containing the phrase “smart money clip,” let alone to a page identical tothat found on Skymall’s website on July 14, 2005. Indeed, it appears, from the limited evidence submitted, that a page offering an Aroa money clip will appear as a search resultsolely because the consumer searches using the phrase “money clip,” irrespective ofwhether the consumer adds the word “smart” to the search term and irrespective ofwhether the page contains the word “smart.” (See id. Ex. M at 93:18-94:9.) Put anotherway, although the evidence is undisputed that, in July 2005, Skymall’s catalog contained awebpage that included the words “smart money clip,” the record reflects no evidence, or atCase 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 11 of 12 best a triable issue, with respect to whether, at that time, Skymall had a search engine that would direct consumers to that page if they were to enter the term “smart money clip.” Conversely, although there is evidence that, at the present time, Skymall’s search engine would direct such consumers to a page advertising an Aroa money clip, there is no evidence that, at this time, any such page contains the words “smart money clip.” In sum,the inquiry of Larson and Watte at their respective depositions is too imprecise to support, as a matter of law, the inference Storus seeks to draw.

Accordingly, the Court finds Storus has failed to show no material issue of fact exists as to a likelihood of initial interest confusion based on Skymall’s search engine.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Storus’ motion for partial summary judgment oftrademark infringement is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

1. The motion is GRANTED and Storus shall have judgment in its favor as against Aroa on the issue of trademark infringement, specifically, that Aroa’s use of Storus’ mark inconnection with Google AdWords is infringing.

2. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.IT IS SO ORDERED?”

pub.bna.com/eclr/06cv2454_021508.pdf

Top Four Common types of Affiliate program

ABC search buys social portal aftervote.com

ABCSearch is a subsidiary of Internext Media Corp. and a major player in online cost-per-click advertising. Aftervote recently voted No.1 on PC magazines The 100 best undiscovered websites of 2007″ is acquired by ABC search a major private help cost per click advertising company.

Google buys doubleclick for 3.24$ billion

Google has bought the famous internet advertising company for a whopping 3.24 billion dollars. That is very good deal for doubleclick. Cost was a bit more than what google was quoted buying doubleclick last year. Doubleclick will bring in a major impact when it comes to google’s revenue areas and its idea of expanding customer base

Live search webmaster center now out of beta

Webmaster center live search has been in beta for a long time, now after probably major testing done by them its out of beta version. I had been using webmaster center of live search for sometime and feel its better than google’s webmaster help center,

this is what MSN official live search blog reports

“This week we’re excited to announce that the Live Search Webmaster Center has moved out of its closed beta and we are now open for a public beta. In conjunction with this release we want to announce the creation of the Live Search Webmaster Center blog. In an effort to serve our webmaster community better we will be sharing information on how to improve your crawlablity and visibility.
We want the center and the blog to be a place for two way communication between Live Search and the webmaster community because we understand that SEO’s and webmasters need this kind of information and the tools we are building to keep their sites performing well.
In the coming weeks we’ll blog in detail about the improvements that we’ve made. Being a webmaster is what you do best. We want to provide a service that will help make you even better. Enjoy!”

Yahoo’s new ad testing feature – rocks,

Yahoo search marketing now provides an ad testing feature where we can test run our ads and prioratize based on which ads perform the best, Its a cool new feature since our clients have always complained ROI from yahoo ads are very bad,

Yahoo don’t have anywhere near the amount of traffic google has and it is very important we run a well organized campaign to get any returns from yahoo paid results. Since ads are judged by quality and click through rate it improves the ROI. Even lower cost ads can perform well based on the new quality index on yahoo search marketing.

Yahoo banning cigaratte ads

Yahoo search marketing has finally come up hard on certain things that are definitely not appropriate for youngsters and sensitive users. Yahoo has banned ads on cigarettes, cheating essays where people trick their colleges by buying essays online, firearms, ammunition ads etc.

This is a great move since I personally never wanted these ads to be displayed, Following is from yahoo’s official search engine marketing blog,

Cigarettes-Sure, James Dean looks cool smoking in that “Rebel Without A Cause” movie poster, but in our search listings we will not accept ads that sell, facilitate the sale, or promote the sale of cigarettes.
Essay-Writing Services-School is hard, writing papers is a drag, but going through life never learning a thing is even more painful. We no longer accept ads that promote academic paper-writing services and the sale of pre-written essays, theses and dissertations.
Fake IDs and Fake Diplomas-These days lots of things can be fake-nails, lips, other body parts. But we have to draw the line at fake IDs or credentials. For that reason, we will not accept ads that offer fake IDs, diplomas or educational transcripts.
Firearms, Ammunition and Fireworks-Go blow ’em up and shoot ’em up somewhere else, because we will not accept ads that offer or promote the sale of fireworks, firearms or integral parts for these weapons.

Fake IDs again is a major problem since children with fake ids enter adults only blogs and spoil learn things they are not supposed to do at their age,

Adwords editor – free ad editing tool,

Google is providing free tool to manage large and multiple campaign simultaneously. That way we can manage campaigns in the comfort of our home without logging into online adwords control panel every time.

This tool is simple to use yet pretty secure,

Following steps help to upload your changes,

You can post all changes in your account, or you can select specific campaigns to post. To post all changes in your account, follow these steps:
Click Post Changes in the tool bar.
You’ll see a summary of the changes that will be posted to AdWords.
Click Post to upload your changes, or click Cancel to cancel the post.
If you click Post, you’ll see a detailed summary, by campaign, of the progress of your post. (If desired, keep a record of your post by copying this report into a separate document.)
If you need to pause while your changes are posting, click Pause in the posting dialog. Then click Resume Post when you’re ready to begin.
Click Close when the post is complete. To post changes in select campaigns, follow these steps:
In the tree view, select the account name. If you only want to post one campaign, you can select the campaign name.
On the Campaigns tab, select the campaigns you want to post.
Click Post Selected Campaigns in the tool bar.
Select the radio button indicating you only want to post changes in your selected campaign.
Click Post to upload your changes, or click Cancel to cancel the post.
If you click Post, you’ll see a detailed summary, by campaign, of the progress of your post. (If desired, keep a record of your post by copying this report into a separate document.)
If you need to pause while your changes are posting, click Pause in the posting dialog. Then click Resume Post when you’re ready to begin.
Click Close when the post is complete.

www.google.com/intl/en/adwordseditor/

Google PPC introduces Demographic bidding,

According to adwords blog,

What is demographic bidding? It’s a feature that helps you target your ads to users of a particular age group (such as ages 18-24), by gender, or to combinations of those groups. You can use demographic bidding whether you are using contextual or placement targeting and with both CPC and CPM bidding. You can refine your reach based on users’ gender and age on certain sites in the Google content network such as MySpace and Friendster, whose users provide that information about themselves. AdWords receives the data in anonymous and aggregate form from participating partner sites, which means that users can’t be personally identified. Here’s an example of how demographic bidding works: suppose you sell women’s basketball shoes and want your ad to be seen by 18-24 year-old females. You could raise your bids to increase the frequency with which those users see your ads. You can also restrict your ads from certain users if you think they’re not meeting your ROI goals. In the case of women’s basketball shoes, you might find that the male, 18-24 year-old demographic is receiving a significant number of impressions but not clicking-through or converting well, and decide to restrict that group.Overall, demographic bidding gives you more control over the demographic groups who see your ads. You can also use demographic reports, available in the AdWords Report Center, to get insight into how your ads perform for specific demographics. These metrics can help you decide how to adjust your bid modifiers and restricts to reach the audiences that give you the most clicks and the best ROI.Lastly, it’s helpful to know that demographic bidding and demographic site selection are two separate ways of targeting your ads. Demographic site selection, found in the AdWords Placement Tool, helps you find and target entire websites that, in general and based on comScore data, have the audience you’re trying to reach. On the other hand, demographic bidding lets you modify your bids or restrict your ads’ visibility based on the age and gender of the users viewing your ads on participating sites in the Google content network.

Looks like a cool new way of bidding through adwords we are planning to give it a try very soon, We feel this is a very good option since different audiences see ads in different ways. I am 26 when I search for a particular product and see google sponsored results I get a bit freaky when it doesn’t read properly to me,

Try the new google demographic bidding and post your comment here,