Keyword Advertising Research Articles

Ex Ante Information and the Design of Keyword Auctions

Keyword advertising, including sponsored links and contextual advertising, powers many of today's online information services such as search engines and Internet-based emails. This paper examines the design of keyword auctions, a novel mechanism that keyword advertising providers such as Google and Yahoo! use to allocate advertising slots. In our keyword auction model, advertisers bid their willingness-to-pay per click on their advertisements, and the advertising provider can weight advertisers' bids differently and require different minimum bids based on advertisers' click-generating potential. We study the impact and design of such weighting schemes and minimum-bid policies. We find that weighting scheme determines how advertisers with different click-generating potential match in equilibrium. Minimum bids exclude low-valuation advertisers and at the same time may distort the equilibrium matching. The efficient design of keyword auctions requires weighting advertisers' bids by their expected click-through-rates, and requires the same minimum weighted bids. The revenue-maximizing weighting scheme may or may not favor advertisers with low click-generating potential. The revenue-maximizing minimum-bid policy differs from those prescribed in the standard auction design literature. Keyword auctions that employ the revenue-maximizing weighting scheme and differentiated minimum bid policy can generate higher revenue than standard fixed-payment auctions. We draw managerial implications for pay-per-click and other pay-for-performance auctions and discuss potential applications to other areas.

Brand Names as Keywords in Sponsored Search Advertising

The business models of major Web search engines depend on online advertising, primarily in the form of keyword advertising. In recent years, a controversy has gained notoriety worldwide, in both the international court systems and the media. It concerns a form of potential “bait and switch” advertising where a consumer, searching using the brand name of one company, is presented with an advertisement by a competitor of the searched-for brand. We refer to this practice as “piggybacking.” In the U.S. in particular, the legality of this practice, and the potential liability of the search engines for contributing to trademark infringement, is unclear. However, the eventual resolutions of the issue could significantly and negatively impact the business model of Internet search engines. In this paper, we investigate the actual prevalence of piggybacking of major brands in U.S. search engines. We submitted 100 search queries consisting of top global brand names to three major search engines. Analysis of 2,350 advertisements from search engine results pages showed that just 4 percent were triggered by competitors’ trademarked terms. There was even lower use of those trademark terms in the ad text. Thus, overall competitive piggybacking does not appear to be a deceptive or widespread phenomenon. Implications for this are discussed, and suggestions for future research are presented.

Lights And Shades on the Future of Keyword Advertising

Abstract On 22 September 2009 Advocate General Poiares Maduro issued hisOpinion on Google Adwords in three joined cases. The article presents the factual background of the cases (I.) and examines how the AdvocateGeneral has dealt with the trademark issues involved (II.). Whereas the trademark prong of the AdvocateGeneral’s Opinion seems sound, its prong dealing with webhosting issues appears to raise more questions than it provides answers (III.). The so called “neutrality” requirement which the Advocate General found in Art. 14 of Directive 2000/31 (E-Commerce Directive) is analysed in depth by Ruessmann/Melin in CRi 2009, pp. 161- 165, earlier in this issue.

Keyword Advertising, and Other Invisible Uses of Third-Party Trade Marks in Online Advertising - A New Zealand/Australasian Perspective

From the early days of the Internet, the use of trade marks have been the subject of intense debate and often litigation. Indeed, much of what constituted "Internet Law" in the late 1990s was driven by controversies over the use of trademarks, in domain names, on Web sites (both visibly and invisibly), and other forms. As we entered the 21st century, the discussion shifted to the advertising arena, as search engine companies saw ways to profit by selling advertising, using methods tied to the trade marks of third-parties. For example, search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Ask.com, and others, have sold Internet "key words," words that when searched for using their search engine, might produce a desired search result, or "hit." When such key word search terms happen to be trade marks, the owners of such marks have reacted by filing litigation, in some jurisdictions, or government action has been brought, in others. This paper discusses those practices, and how third-party use of trade marks in Internet advertising is conducted in New Zealand and Australia, and how courts and government agencies in Australasia and elsewhere have dealt with such practices, or how existing jurisprudence might be applied. The papers begins with an examination of the trade mark, its origins in English common law and how it has evolved, and how owners can prevent third-party unauthorised use. The paper discusses what constitutes "trade mark use," in various jurisdictions (including the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand). Included is discussion of New Zealand and Australia’s trade mark law, the law of passing off, and other consumer protection laws. The paper reviews relevant jurisprudence from the US and UK and discusses how such disputes might be resolved in New Zealand.

Auctioning Keywords in Online Search

Keyword advertising, or “sponsored links” that appear alongside online search results or other online content, has grown into a multibillion-dollar market. Providers of keyword advertising, such as Google and Yahoo, profit by auctioning keywords to advertisers. An issue of increasing importance for advertising providers is the “share structure” problem—that is, of the total available resources for each keyword (in terms of exposure), how large a share should be set aside for the highest bidder, for the second-highest bidder, and so on. The authors study this problem under a general specification and characterize the optimal share structures that maximize advertising providers’ revenues. They also derive results on how the optimal share structure should change with advertisers’ price elasticity of demand for exposure, their valuation distribution, total resources, and minimum bids. The authors draw implications for keyword auctions and other applications.

Trademark Use Doctrine - Ground on Internet Keywords Adversity

Technological innovations, incredible marketing strategies and forming consumer habit have been shaping the form of trademark use for centuries. The way people use information and purchase merchandise is also changing the internet. Companies need to seek a new marketing strategy advertising their products so as to break through information flow; and keyword advertising is regarded as an effective way to solve the obstacle. The core issue, however, Trademark Law, about what is trademark use, once again be brought forth into light.United States Federal Courts have never articulated a standard for trademark use, nor addressed whether selling keyword advertising falls into the scope of trademark use the pre-internet age. In this article, however, we can see courts strike down a doctrine of trademark use which is drawn Lanham Act. The Courts expand definition of A mark is used commerce to the field of trademark use doctrine as, in connection with services when it is used or displayed the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered commerce. And keyword advertising is merely a measure of competition which selling and buying keyword advertising is not deemed as trademark use.Strong international trademark protection has unevenly influenced national trademark regulation. Since national trademark rules share a common source, Taiwanese Trademark Law might vary the definition of trademark use as well as Taiwanese courts.

Keyword Advertising: Challenging the Traditional Concept of "Use" under Malaysian Trade Mark Law

Keyword advertising involves the sale of keywords, sometimes comprising the trade marks of others, by search engine providers so that the keyword purchasers' advertisements are triggered as sponsored results whenever Internet users type in any of the keywords as search terms. This method of online advertising is new and novel and has been embraced widely by many businesses. However, its legality, particularly in the sale of keywords comprising the trade marks of others, has been challenged in a number of major jurisdictions. This article examines the approach of the courts in the U.S. and the UK with regard to the practice of keyword advertising with particular emphasis on the concept of "trade mark use." With these foreign decisions serving as a useful guide, this article analyses and evaluates whether the practice of keyword advertising is legal under Malaysian trade mark law as embodied in the Trade Marks Act 1976.

Keyword Advertising: Challenging the Traditional Concept of “Use” under Malaysian Trade Mark Law

AbstractKeyword advertising involves the sale of keywords, sometimes comprising the trade marks of others, by search engine providers so that the keyword purchasers' advertisements are triggered as sponsored results whenever Internet users type in any of the keywords as search terms. This method of online advertising is new and novel and has been embraced widely by many businesses. However, its legality, particularly in the sale of keywords comprising the trade marks of others, has been challenged in a number of major jurisdictions. This article examines the approach of the courts in the U.S. and the UK with regard to the practice of keyword advertising with particular emphasis on the concept of “trade mark use.” With these foreign decisions serving as a useful guide, this article analyses and evaluates whether the practice of keyword advertising is legal under Malaysian trade mark law as embodied in the Trade Marks Act 1976.

The online advertising free-riding free-for-all

The article reviews the case law in the USA, France, Germany, and the UK; on the use of third party trade marks to trigger the display of sponsored search advertisements on search engines.; The article; analyses the application to this practice of the ECJ's requirement in Arsenal v Reed that offending uses of trade marks must affect their function, in particular their essential function as a badge of origin, and considers the effect of the recent ECJ decision in O2 v H3G. The legality of the practice is a grey area in most jurisdictions, with few coming to any firm and consistent conclusions.; In Europe, member states have differing views, despite the presence of harmonized trade mark laws.; The best authority available; in the UK is arguably weak and given the conclusion of the ECJ in O2 v H3G may not now be correct.; In any case, the French Cour de Cassation has referred pertinent questions on the practice to the ECJ, and so an answer should be coming, if not for a while. Keyword advertising is big business for search engines and their advertisers, with the majority of online advertising budgets spent in this way.; But brand owners are not happy with third parties using their trade marks in the hope of increasing custom, while potentially diverting it from the trade mark owner.

Keyword Advertising, and Other Invisible Uses of Third-Party Trade Marks in Online Advertising - a New Zealand/Australasian Perspective

From the early days of the Internet, the use of trade marks have been the subject of intense debate and often litigation. Indeed, much of what constituted "Internet Law" in the late 1990s was driven by controversies over the use of trademarks, in domain names, on Web sites (both visibly and invisibly), and other forms. As we entered the 21st century, the discussion shifted to the advertising arena, as search engine companies saw ways to profit by selling advertising, using methods tied to the trade marks of third-parties. For example, search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Ask.com, and others, have sold Internet "key words," words that when searched for using their search engine, might produce a desired search result, or "hit." When such key word search terms happen to be trade marks, the owners of such marks have reacted by filing litigation, in some jurisdictions, or government action has been brought, in others. This paper discusses those practices, and how third-party use of trade marks in Internet advertising is conducted in New Zealand and Australia, and how courts and government agencies in Australasia and elsewhere have dealt with such practices, or how existing jurisprudence might be applied. The papers begins with an examination of the trade mark, its origins in English common law and how it has evolved, and how owners can prevent third-party unauthorised use. The paper discusses what constitutes "trade mark use," in various jurisdictions (including the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand). Included is discussion of New Zealand and Australia’s trade mark law, the law of passing off, and other consumer protection laws. The paper reviews relevant jurisprudence from the US and UK and discusses how such disputes might be resolved in New Zealand.

Intelligent-Commerce Research in China

Recent years have witnessed the increased application of AI technologies to real-world e-commerce challenges. This article presents a brief overview of representative work by Chinese researchers, covering topics such as multiagent decision making, keyword advertising, social networks, recommender systems, information retrieval and the semantic Web, and computational experiments. This article is part of a special issue on AI in China.

The Google Online Marketing Challenge: Classroom Learning with Real Clients, Real Money, and Real Advertising Campaigns

ABSTRACTThe advent of keyword advertising has had a tremendous effect on online advertising, Internet marketing, search engines, and Web sites that earn advertising revenue. Pay-per-click advertising therefore provides a critical topic for educators who hope to prepare students for professional careers in advertising and related areas. The Google Online Marketing Challenge offers an innovative way to achieve this goal in a unique hands-on context. With more than 8,000 participating students from 47 countries, the 2008 Challenge is, as far as the authors know, the largest in-class academic competition ever undertaken. The Challenge is also unique in its linkages among students, businesses, and the classroom. This article briefly reviews online marketing and Google’s advertising platform.

Searching for a Solution: The Lanham Act's “Use in Commerce” Requirement in Search Engine Keyword Advertising Cases

Searching for a Solution: The Lanham Act's “Use in Commerce” Requirement in Search Engine Keyword Advertising Cases

Keyword-Advertising

Keyword advertising has become a popular form of marketing advertisements on the internet. Context-related ads placed either next to search results or on web pages close to related articles offer the possibility of a much more targeted and efficient promotion than conventionally placed ads. Over the last years, there has been an advancing legal discussion whether it is permitted to use trademarks or company names of competitors as keywords. There have already been several lower courts' decisions in various European countries, most of them differing in finding and reasoning. Although trademark law in all member states of the European Union is based on the European trademark directive 89/104/EEC and, therefore, should be construed equally, this question has not yet been brought to the European Court of Justice. In March 2007, the Austrian Supreme Court of Justice has ruled on this matter as one of the first Supreme Courts in Europe. On the occasion of this judgment, the following article will provide a short overview of the discussions in Germany, France and the United Kingdom therewith evaluating the tendency this issue might take in Europe.

Misappropriation of Trademark

The dominant view of misappropriation doctrine fits trademark law poorly. It is at odds with contemporary theory and the reasons for protecting intellectual property. A more nuanced view of the Supreme Court's germinal misappropriation case leads to a misappropriation doctrine consistent with both externality theory and public goods theory. IP theory and misappropriation doctrine then lead to rules reflecting a balance between incentive creation and free access. Applying this nuanced interpretation to the issue of Internet initial interest confusion suggests that keyword advertising promotes competition and reduces search costs more than it interferes with incentives to engage in trademarking activity.

Keyword Auctions, Unit-Price Contracts, and the Role of Commitment

Motivated by the enormous growth of keyword advertising, this paper explores the design of unit-price contract auctions, in which bidders bid their unit prices, and the winner is chosen based on both their bids and performance levels. The previous literature in unit-price contract auctions usually considers a static case where bidders' performance levels are fixed, and suggests giving preferential treatment to those bidders with low performance levels in order to promote competition. This paper extends such research by allowing bidders with lower performance levels to improve their performance at a certain cost. We examine the impact of the preferential policy on overall bidder performance, the auction efficiency, and the auctioneer's revenue, and derive the revenue-maximizing and efficient policy accordingly. Moreover, the possible upgrade in bidders' performance levels gives the auctioneer an incentive to modify the auction rules over time, as is confirmed by the practice of Yahoo! and Google. We thus compare the auctioneer's revenue-maximizing policies when she is fully committed to the auction rule and when not, and show that she should give less preferential treatment to low-performance advertisers when she is fully committed.

Keyword Advertising: Why All the Fuss?

Keyword advertising is among the fastest growing and controversial forms of online advertising. Keyword advertising, sometimes called keying, enables advertisers to target individuals with certain interests by linking advertisements to pre-identified keywords (Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 [9 th Cir. 2004]). Keywords are the search terms used when querying a search engine (There is no standard definition of the term, neither is there a defined set of keywords that are available. The Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization, for example, defines keyword in the same manner as search term, as The words [or word] a searcher enters into a search engine's search box. Also used to refer to the terms a search engine marketer hopes a particular page will be found for. Also called keywords, query terms or query. See Search Engine Optimization & Marketing Glossary, at http://www.sempo.org/glossary.php#terms [last visited February 26, 2005]). Any term that may be entered into a search engine can be a keyword. Keyword advertising is big business. It is a major driver of search engine revenues. The business practices related to this type of advertising are being hotly contested in the courts both in the United States and in the European Union. The legal issues are deceptively complex and, as is so often the case with the Internet, require that traditional principles of intellectual property law be applied in new and rapidly changing contexts. Keyword advertising straddles the line between trademark and unfair competition law and business marketing in the highly competitive online world. On one level keyword advertising presents another iteration of a recurring theme: has Internet practice outstripped the law? Is advertising linked to another party's keyword-trademark an acceptable use, or is it another case of a business model that allows one party to make money using another party's intellectual property. In the trademark law context, keyword advertising raises the possibility of revisiting the metes and bounds of trademark owners' control over the use of their trademarks. So far, the few court decisions in this area present a mixed landscape, leaving businesses that rely on keyword advertising vulnerable in the absence of definitive boundaries. Keyword advertising promises to be a major legal battle area, if not the major battle area, for at least the next few years. The future of many Internet advertising companies may depend on the results of this legal struggle. This article discusses the current state of the keyword advertising controversy in the context of the current business environment and the existing case law.

New Technology Briefing: Ten golden rules to search advertising

There is no better way to spend your marketing money than with keyword advertising. The latter is an online text based form of advertising triggered when a user types in a keyword to a search engine. This form of advertising is highly relevant, which increases the likelihood of customers finding you. Users searching on terms specific to your products or services are qualified leads. And you pay only for customers who click to your site. Keyword advertising therefore produces a significantly higher return on investment than other forms of marketing. This paper offers practical tips on getting the most out of keyword advertising.

Searching for trouble – keyword advertising and trade mark infringement

For years, Internet search companies have relied on the sale of advertising to provide a revenue stream. Initially, such advertising was largely untargeted. However, over time, efforts have been made to increasingly tailor such advertising to the individual user and, more recently, to the “keyword” searched by the user.1 As Internet search companies expand into other areas of on-line activity, the use of such targeted ads can be expected to increase. Indeed, Google's recently announced email service, Gmail, provides targeted ads based on the content of each email message received by a Gmail user.2

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Milton D. Goldenberg and Immunomedics, Inc., v. Cytogen, Inc., and C.R. Bard, Inc. (03-1409)

Biotechnology Law ReportVol. 23, No. 5 TextsUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Milton D. Goldenberg and Immunomedics, Inc., v. Cytogen, Inc., and C.R. Bard, Inc. (03-1409)Published Online:18 Oct 2004https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2004.23.639AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byContract Disputes: Using Survey Data to Reach a Fair, Comprehensive and Sensible SolutionSSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. 41Search Engines Searching for Trouble? Comparing Search Engine Operator Responsibility for Competitive Keyword Advertising Under EU and US Trademark LawSSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. 33Contract Law TheorySSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. 44 Volume 23Issue 5Oct 2004 InformationCopyright 2004, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Milton D. Goldenberg and Immunomedics, Inc., v. Cytogen, Inc., and C.R. Bard, Inc. (03-1409).Biotechnology Law Report.Oct 2004.639-648.http://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2004.23.639Published in Volume: 23 Issue 5: October 18, 2004PDF download