<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Piggynap's Blog &#124; Zoe Piper &#187; branding</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.piggynap.com/tag/branding/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.piggynap.com</link>
	<description>Zoe Piper, The Internet And Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:21:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Protect Your Brand Or Let It Grow?</title>
		<link>http://www.piggynap.com/advertising/protect-your-brand-or-let-it-grow/</link>
		<comments>http://www.piggynap.com/advertising/protect-your-brand-or-let-it-grow/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:28:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[branding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.piggynap.com/?p=279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patrick over at Blogstorm has posted about Interflora suing M&#038;S over brand bidding. Apparently Marks &#038; Spencer were bidding on the keyword &#8216;interflora&#8217; and the flower company took exception. Now, according to Google it&#8217;s OK to bid on someone else&#8217;s brand, but UK courts could take a different view &#8211; after all, there are all [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patrick over at Blogstorm has posted about <a href="http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/interflora-sues-marks-spencer-over-brand-bidding/1650/">Interflora suing M&#038;S</a> over brand bidding. Apparently Marks &#038; Spencer were bidding on the keyword &#8216;interflora&#8217; and the flower company took exception. Now, according to Google it&#8217;s OK to bid on someone else&#8217;s brand, but UK courts could take a different view &#8211; after all, there are all sorts of laws safeguarding people&#8217;s trademarks and the implications of keyword advertising are still being explored.</p>
<p>I really wish I&#8217;d taken a screenshot because it looks like they&#8217;ve stopped, but a few days ago <a href="http://www.purenet.co.uk/">Purenet</a> were bidding on the keyword &#8217;9xb&#8217; which, as you know if you&#8217;ve read my <a href="http://www.piggynap.com/about/">about page</a>, is the company I work for. Now, to get them to stop presumably we&#8217;d have to jump through lots of legal hoops to prove 9xb was a trademark and Purenet were damaging us by bidding on it. Personally I&#8217;d rather just create our own advert saying &#8220;Accept No Imitations, There Is Only One 9xb&#8221;&#8230;but that&#8217;s just me.</p>
<p>People bid on people&#8217;s brand names all the time and it&#8217;s only occasional that it goes to court. It will be interesting to see what happens in the M&#038;S case, but I think there&#8217;s a wider issue to explore &#8211; an issue to do with language and the internet in general. </p>
<p>Firstly, information is so widely (and easily) available that your trademark isn&#8217;t what protects you &#8211; it&#8217;s your reputation. If you search for Interflora and all you see is a load of news stories about them suing someone, it won&#8217;t matter how much they&#8217;ve kept their brand name to themselves. In an online environment you will <strong>never</strong> have full control over your brand name so you should concentrate on making your company image as positive as possible so other people mention you in a positive light.</p>
<p>Secondly, and reinforcing the fact that your brand name is never under your control, language evolves. Remember when &#8216;hoover&#8217; referred to a brand and not just an appliance? (If you do you&#8217;re older than me!) Several brand names have <a href="http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=81">fallen into common usage</a> just because of their popularity. Google in fact <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-you-google.html">is one of them</a> &#8211; I&#8217;ve lost count of the American films I&#8217;ve seen where a character &#8220;googled&#8221; something (question &#8211; is this product placement for the digital age?). </p>
<p>Google&#8217;s stance is that imitation is the best form of flattery. If you google something, you&#8217;re finding it on Google and that can only be a good thing. A rival company bidding on your key term may not be a perfect parallel but I see similarities &#8211; your brand name is being used in a way that&#8217;s outside your control. Do you take drastic action and sue/launch a brand awareness campaign, or do you do a Google and let your company image evolve naturally?</p>
<p>My opinion? If someone&#8217;s bidding on your brand name, bid higher than them. If someone&#8217;s talking about you, talk back. You can&#8217;t hide behind a trademark all the time.</p>
<!-- AdSense Now! V1.98 -->
<!-- Post[count: 2] -->
<div class="adsense adsense-leadout" style="text-align:center;margin: 12px;"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8524434126518970";
/* Ad unit 1 */
google_ad_slot = "5699011911";
google_ad_width = 300;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div><img src="http://www.piggynap.com/?ak_action=api_record_view&id=279&type=feed" alt="" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.piggynap.com/advertising/protect-your-brand-or-let-it-grow/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

