Understanding Keyword Advertising Disputes
The Core Issue: Keyword advertising trademark disputes arise when competitors bid on trademarked terms to trigger their ads in search results, or use trademarks in website metadata to improve organic search rankings. The key legal question is whether this creates "likelihood of confusion" under the Lanham Act, particularly through the "initial interest confusion" doctrine.
Types of Keyword Advertising Issues
| Practice | Description | Legal Risk Level |
|---|---|---|
| Keyword Bidding Only | Bidding on competitor trademark as keyword, but not using mark in ad text | Low - Generally permitted |
| Mark in Ad Text | Using competitor's trademark in the ad headline or description | High - Likely infringement |
| Mark in Display URL | Using competitor's trademark in the visible URL path | High - Likely infringement |
| Metatag Stuffing | Inserting competitor trademarks in page metadata | Medium-High - Depends on context |
| Comparative Advertising | "Better than [Competitor]" or comparison ads | Low - If truthful and non-deceptive |
Legal Framework
Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine
Initial interest confusion occurs when a trademark is used to capture initial consumer attention, even if actual confusion is dispelled before purchase. In the keyword advertising context:
- Traditional confusion: Consumer is confused at the point of purchase about source or sponsorship
- Initial interest confusion: Consumer's initial interest is captured through trademark use, even if they later realize the mistake
- Relevance: A user searching for "Brand A" who clicks on Brand B's ad was initially diverted by the trademark use
Circuit Split: Courts disagree on how strictly to apply initial interest confusion online. The Ninth Circuit (Network Automation) requires a nuanced multi-factor analysis. Other circuits have found initial interest confusion insufficient where consumers can easily distinguish sources in search results.
Network Automation v. Advanced Systems Factors
The Ninth Circuit's leading case on keyword advertising, Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011), identified key factors for analyzing likelihood of confusion:
| # | Factor | Application to Keyword Ads |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Strength of the Mark | Stronger marks receive greater protection; famous marks more likely to cause confusion |
| 2 | Evidence of Actual Confusion | Survey evidence or documented instances of consumer confusion |
| 3 | Type of Goods/Degree of Care | Expensive products = more careful consumers = less confusion likely |
| 4 | Defendant's Intent | Intent to deceive weighs heavily toward finding confusion |
| 5 | Labeling/Appearance of Ads | Does the ad clearly identify the advertiser's own brand? |
| 6 | Likelihood of Expansion | Less relevant in keyword cases |
| 7 | Similarity of Marks | Using identical mark = higher similarity; variations reduce risk |
| 8 | Use in Ad Text | Using mark in ad text is much more problematic than keyword bidding alone |
Key Cases
Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. (2d Cir. 2009)
Held that Google's sale of trademarks as keywords constitutes "use in commerce" under the Lanham Act, allowing trademark owners to bring infringement claims. This reversed earlier district court decisions that had dismissed such claims.
562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009)
Network Automation v. Advanced Systems (9th Cir. 2011)
Established the modern framework for analyzing keyword advertising confusion. Held that the "Internet trinity" factors (similarity of marks, relatedness of goods, simultaneous use of the web) are not dispositive, and courts must consider all relevant Sleekcraft factors with emphasis on labeling and consumer care.
638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011)
1-800 Contacts v. WhenU.com (2d Cir. 2005)
Found that pop-up ads triggered by competitor trademarks did not constitute trademark "use" because the mark was not displayed to consumers. This narrow reading has been partially superseded by Rescuecom.
414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005)
Multi Time Machine v. Amazon (9th Cir. 2015)
Held that Amazon's display of competitor watches in response to a trademark search did not create initial interest confusion where the search results clearly showed different brand names. Emphasized that reasonably prudent consumers can distinguish sources.
804 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2015)
Metatag and SEO Trademark Issues
Types of Metatag Infringement
| Metatag Type | Description | Infringement Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Title Tags | HTML title element displayed in search results | High - Visible to consumers |
| Meta Description | Description snippet shown in search results | High - Visible to consumers |
| Meta Keywords | Hidden keywords tag (largely ignored by search engines now) | Low-Medium - Invisible but may show intent |
| Alt Text | Image descriptions for accessibility/SEO | Medium - Can affect image search |
| Hidden Text | White text on white background, etc. | High - Deceptive practice |
Brookfield Communications: The Ninth Circuit's Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999), was the first major case finding metatag use of a competitor's trademark could constitute infringement. The court analogized it to a competitor placing misleading road signs to divert highway traffic. While the reasoning has been refined, metatag stuffing with competitor trademarks remains legally risky.
Google Ads Trademark Policy
What Google Restricts
- Ad Text: Using a trademark in ad headlines, descriptions, or display paths may be restricted upon complaint
- Keywords: Google generally does NOT restrict bidding on trademarked keywords
- Resellers/Informational Sites: Exceptions exist for authorized resellers, informational sites, and comparative advertising
Filing a Google Ads Trademark Complaint
- Go to Google's Trademark Complaint form
- Provide trademark registration details
- Identify the specific ads violating your rights
- Explain how the ads create confusion
- Google will investigate and may restrict the advertiser's use of your mark in ad text
Practical Tip: Google's trademark complaint process is faster and cheaper than litigation for stopping use of your mark in ad text. However, it won't stop keyword bidding, and competitors can often work around restrictions by modifying ad copy. For persistent infringers, legal action may still be necessary.
Sample Demand Letters
Sample 1: Demand to Stop Trademark Use in Google Ads
[Law Firm Letterhead]
[Date]
VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL
[Competitor Company]
[Address]
Attn: General Counsel / Marketing Director
Re: Trademark Infringement in Google Ads - Immediate Cessation Required
Your Ads Using [TRADEMARK] - U.S. Reg. No. [X,XXX,XXX]
Dear [Recipient]:
This firm represents [Trademark Owner, Inc.] ("Client"), owner of the federally registered trademark [TRADEMARK], U.S. Registration No. [X,XXX,XXX], covering [goods/services]. We write regarding your company's unauthorized use of our client's trademark in Google Ads advertising.
INFRINGING ADVERTISEMENTS
Our investigation has identified that [Competitor] is running Google Ads that use our client's [TRADEMARK] mark in the following manner:
Ad Headline: "[TRADEMARK] Alternative - Try [Competitor Product]"
Ad Description: "Better than [TRADEMARK]. Switch to [Competitor] today and save 30%."
Display URL: www.competitor.com/[trademark]-alternative
[Attach screenshots of the infringing ads with dates]
This advertising is triggered when consumers search for "[TRADEMARK]" and related terms on Google.
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Your use of [TRADEMARK] in your ad text constitutes trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114 and 1125(a). Specifically:
1. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION: Your ads use our client's mark in a manner that creates initial interest confusion, diverting consumers searching for [TRADEMARK] products to your website.
2. FALSE ASSOCIATION: Your ad text suggests a relationship or comparison with [TRADEMARK] that misleads consumers about the nature of your products.
3. BAD FAITH: Your deliberate targeting of [TRADEMARK] searches with ads containing our client's mark demonstrates intent to trade on [TRADEMARK]'s goodwill.
Under the Network Automation factors, confusion is likely because:
- [TRADEMARK] is a strong, distinctive mark with [X years] of use
- Your ads appear directly in response to searches for our client's mark
- Your ads use our client's mark in the headline, not just as a keyword trigger
- Consumers searching for [TRADEMARK] are likely to click on ads containing that mark
DAMAGES AND REMEDIES
Your infringing advertising has caused and continues to cause our client substantial harm, including:
- Diversion of potential customers
- Dilution of [TRADEMARK] brand value
- Lost sales attributable to diverted traffic
Under the Lanham Act, [Trademark Owner] is entitled to:
- Injunctive relief prohibiting further use of [TRADEMARK] in advertising
- Your profits attributable to the infringing advertising
- Our client's actual damages
- Attorney fees as this is an exceptional case
DEMAND
We demand that [Competitor] immediately:
1. CEASE all use of [TRADEMARK] in Google Ads headlines, descriptions, display URLs, and ad extensions;
2. REMOVE all currently running ads that contain [TRADEMARK];
3. CEASE bidding on [TRADEMARK] as a keyword if your ads will display our client's mark (keyword bidding without using the mark in ad text is a separate issue);
4. CONFIRM IN WRITING within ten (10) days that you have complied with these demands;
5. PROVIDE an accounting of impressions, clicks, and conversions from ads containing [TRADEMARK].
CONSEQUENCES
If [Competitor] does not comply, [Trademark Owner] will:
- File a trademark infringement lawsuit in federal court
- Seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
- File a trademark complaint with Google Ads
- Pursue maximum damages including disgorgement of profits
We prefer to resolve this matter without litigation. Please contact me immediately to discuss compliance.
Sincerely,
[Attorney Name]
Counsel for [Trademark Owner, Inc.]
Enclosures:
- Trademark Registration Certificate
- Screenshots of Infringing Ads
Sample 2: Metatag/SEO Trademark Infringement Demand
[Law Firm Letterhead]
[Date]
VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL
[Website Operator]
[Address]
Re: Trademark Infringement - Unauthorized Use in Website Metadata
[TRADEMARK] - U.S. Reg. No. [X,XXX,XXX]
Website: www.[defendant-site].com
Dear [Recipient]:
This firm represents [Trademark Owner] regarding your unauthorized use of our client's [TRADEMARK] trademark in your website's metadata and source code.
INFRINGING USE
We have analyzed the source code and metadata of www.[defendant-site].com and discovered the following unauthorized uses of [TRADEMARK]:
1. TITLE TAG: Your page title contains "[TRADEMARK] - [Your Site]" causing search engines to display our client's mark in results.
2. META DESCRIPTION: Your meta description states "[Compare to TRADEMARK]" or similar language using our mark.
3. META KEYWORDS: Your keywords meta tag includes "[TRADEMARK]" and variations.
4. ALT TEXT: Images on your site include alt text containing "[TRADEMARK]."
5. HIDDEN TEXT: [If applicable] Your site contains hidden text/white-on-white text including "[TRADEMARK]."
[Attach screenshots of source code showing the infringing metatags]
As a result, when consumers search for "[TRADEMARK]" on Google, your website appears prominently in search results, diverting traffic intended for our client.
LEGAL VIOLATION
Your use of [TRADEMARK] in metatags constitutes trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. As the Ninth Circuit held in Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999), using a competitor's trademark in metatags to divert internet traffic is analogous to placing misleading road signs to divert highway traffic.
Your conduct:
- Creates initial interest confusion among consumers searching for [TRADEMARK]
- Unfairly diverts search traffic to your website
- Trades on the goodwill our client has developed in [TRADEMARK]
- Demonstrates bad faith intent to exploit [TRADEMARK]'s reputation
DEMAND
We demand that within fourteen (14) days you:
1. REMOVE all instances of [TRADEMARK] from your website's metadata, including title tags, meta descriptions, meta keywords, alt text, and any hidden text;
2. REQUEST that search engines re-crawl your site to update their cached versions;
3. CONFIRM IN WRITING that you have completed these remedial actions;
4. AGREE to refrain from using [TRADEMARK] in metadata or SEO tactics in the future.
If you fail to comply, we will file a federal lawsuit seeking:
- Permanent injunction
- Disgorgement of profits from diverted traffic
- Actual damages
- Attorney fees
Please respond by [deadline date].
Sincerely,
[Attorney Name]
Counsel for [Trademark Owner]
Attachments:
- Source code screenshots
- Search result screenshots
- Trademark registration
Sample 3: Google Ads Complaint Letter to Google
[Company Letterhead]
[Date]
VIA GOOGLE TRADEMARK COMPLAINT FORM
Google LLC
Attn: Ads Trademark Team
Re: Trademark Complaint - Unauthorized Use of [TRADEMARK] in Google Ads
Trademark: [TRADEMARK]
Registration: U.S. Reg. No. [X,XXX,XXX]
Advertiser: [Competitor Name]
Dear Google Trademark Team:
[Trademark Owner, Inc.] submits this complaint regarding unauthorized use of our registered trademark in Google Ads by [Competitor Name].
TRADEMARK OWNERSHIP
[Trademark Owner] is the owner of the trademark [TRADEMARK], which is:
- Federally registered: U.S. Registration No. [X,XXX,XXX]
- Registration date: [Date]
- Goods/Services: [Description]
- First use in commerce: [Date]
A copy of the registration certificate is attached.
INFRINGING ADS
The advertiser [Competitor Name] is running Google Ads that use our trademark in the ad text in the following manner:
Advertiser: [Competitor Name]
Website: www.[competitor].com
Infringing Ad Copy:
Headline: "[TRADEMARK] Alternative - Save 50%"
Description: "Why pay more for [TRADEMARK]? Try [Competitor Product] - Same quality, lower price."
Display URL: www.competitor.com/[trademark]
Search Terms Triggering These Ads: "[TRADEMARK]", "[TRADEMARK] reviews", "buy [TRADEMARK]"
[Attach screenshots with dates]
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
This advertiser is NOT:
- An authorized reseller of [TRADEMARK] products
- An informational site providing legitimate reviews
- Engaged in permissible comparative advertising
The use of [TRADEMARK] in the ad text creates confusion about whether [Competitor] is affiliated with, sponsored by, or authorized by [Trademark Owner].
REQUESTED ACTION
We request that Google:
1. Investigate the reported ads
2. Restrict [Competitor Name] from using [TRADEMARK] in ad text
3. Confirm what action has been taken
VERIFICATION
I, [Name], am authorized to act on behalf of [Trademark Owner, Inc.] in submitting this complaint. The information provided is accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Signature: _______________________
Name: [Name]
Title: [Title]
Company: [Trademark Owner, Inc.]
Date: [Date]
Contact Information:
Email: [email]
Phone: [phone]
Attachments:
- U.S. Trademark Registration Certificate
- Screenshots of infringing ads
- Company authorization letter
Frequently Asked Questions
Generally, no. Courts have consistently held that keyword bidding alone - without using the trademark in ad text - is not likely to cause confusion. Google's policy explicitly allows keyword bidding on trademarks. Your practical options are: (1) Focus on stopping use of your mark in ad text, which is more likely to succeed legally and through Google's trademark complaint process; (2) Bid on your own trademark to ensure your ads appear at the top; (3) Consider the cost-benefit of litigation, which is expensive and uncertain for keyword-only claims.
Truthful comparative advertising is generally protected under the fair use doctrine, even if it uses your trademark. If a competitor accurately compares their product to yours (e.g., "Lower price than [Brand]" when that's true), this is likely permitted. However, comparative ads can cross the line into infringement if they: falsely suggest affiliation or sponsorship, make false claims about your product, or create confusion about source. The key is whether the ad clearly identifies the advertiser's own brand and makes truthful comparisons.
Damages can be challenging to prove. Methods include: (1) Lost profits - show decline in your traffic/sales correlating with competitor's campaign; (2) Defendant's profits - obtain through discovery the revenue attributable to ads using your mark; (3) Reasonable royalty - what would you have charged for a license to use your mark in ads; (4) Corrective advertising - cost of advertising to counteract the confusion; (5) Survey evidence - professional consumer surveys showing actual confusion. An experienced expert witness can help quantify damages.
Filing a Google trademark complaint does not waive or affect your legal rights. You can simultaneously file a complaint with Google and send a legal demand letter. However, be aware that if Google restricts the advertiser and they modify their ads, you may have less ongoing harm to demonstrate in litigation. Document everything before filing any complaints. Some trademark owners send a legal demand letter first, giving the infringer a chance to stop voluntarily, before escalating to Google complaints and litigation.
The legal principles remain relevant, but the technical landscape has changed. Search engines now largely ignore meta keywords tags, so stuffing competitor trademarks there has less SEO impact (though it may show intent). However, title tags and meta descriptions still appear in search results and can create confusion. Alt text affects image search. Hidden text is both a trademark issue and an SEO violation that can result in search engine penalties. Focus your claims on visible uses that actually affect what consumers see in search results.
Similar principles apply to Amazon Sponsored Products and other marketplace advertising, though each platform has its own policies. Amazon generally allows keyword bidding on trademarked terms but has a Brand Registry program that gives trademark owners more control. The Multi Time Machine v. Amazon case (9th Cir. 2015) held that displaying competitor products in response to a brand search doesn't create confusion if the products are clearly labeled with their actual brands. File complaints through each platform's brand protection program.
Need Help With Keyword Advertising Disputes?
I help trademark owners stop competitors from misusing their marks in online advertising and SEO practices.
Contact for Consult