It makes in theory, but I think that could get really messy in practice. Trademarks aren't universal, they're for a specific domain.

So who can bid on the keyword "Apple"? Does Apple Computer get exclusivity? What about Apple Cosmetics? Apple Travel Agency? Apple Corps? Imagine telling Greg Apple of Apple Plumbing that he can't advertise using his own last name!

Even if you let everyone with a relevant trademark bid on keywords, you're still gonna have problems because so many trademarks are normal words. Should a random orchard that hasn't obtained a trademark containing the word "Apple" be able to place apple ads?

Even better, what about "Nissan?" https://nissan.com/

“We also offer Web design, Custom graphics design”.... not the best portfolio for that?

Have you seen a Japanese website before?

https://www.infocubic.co.jp/en/blog/website-design/how-japan...

Many companies have names that have perfectly valid uses in their business domain as well. For instance, "coinbase", "y combinator", etc.

Simple solution, in case of conflict nobody gets to bid on advertising.

Doesn't that lead to a very simple DOS on your competitors? Just register a trademarked entity in another market.

Google Soap. Parler French School. Stripe Flags. Square Foods. etc.

Trademark offices make it hard to register similar trademarks.

However, what you described is not a conflict search “Windows” and you get www.microsoft.com etc, but search “Storm Windows” and no search engine is going to show you www.microsoft.com/... as the top entry.

It is however a reason not to choose single word trademarks.

I don’t think this would be a problem in practice. Google search already does context aware searches. It already differentiates people searching for Apple the iPhone company vs the appples that you eat. It differentiates searches for programming strings vs weaving.

So in practice, I think differentiating the area of trademark is something that could be done.

I think it’s fair to say we only need to consider national and international trademarks.

At least with Ads you need to attribute a competitor's trademark to your competitor.

Matt’s apple orchard may or may not be trademarked. They may be registered in their state, but not likely nationally.

The money is in the big marks. Matt is not going to bid against Apple. Matt might bid against his neighbor on generic terms or on business name. His neighbor may bid on generic terms but not on his business name. That’d be tawdry.

If I go to a store and ask for a KitchenAid, should it be illegal for the salesperson to try to sell me a mixer from another manufacturer?

Is the salesperson selling ads or selling goods? If she's selling goods, she can show me all the alternatives she wants!

If she's selling ads, she should not pretend to not hear me say KitchenAid unless KitchenAid pays her enough to "understand" KitchenAid.

Vendor specific sales incentives and brick and mortar retailers charging vendors to be more visible than competitors are sales of active and passive advertising respectively.

Retailers have income streams beyond what shoppers provide directly. They sell access to your attention like Google and Facebook.

It should be illegal for the salesperson to put the KitchenAid product behind a mixer from another manufacturer, just because the other manufacturer paid them to.

You need to actively scroll past the ads. They aren't after the organic results. They are at the top, you need to ignore them or click them. It comes in b/w you and the first result.

This is how stores are in the real world - suppliers pay for good shelf space and for things like endcap displays. Also, salespeople get a bonus for selling particular items.

True, but when you reach for Coke, you get a coke. If you reach for a Pepsi you get a Pepsi. They don't nest a Pepsi in a Coke wrapper or vice versa to keep you from buying your choice.

I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. When you get the ad, it’s labeled as an ad and you still get the organic result. “I feel lucky” doesn’t send you to the ad.

Yeah, a better comparison would be if you go to the store intending to buy Coke, but at the front of the soda aisle is a giant display with Pepsi on sale -- so you end up buying Pepsi. Which, come to think of it, happens to me all the time.

Ok a better representation would be I ask a clerk for a Coke but I get handed a Pepsi and I have to say, no, I asked for a Coke, not a Pepsi. But depending on how much Pepsi paid them I may get the Pepsi handed to me several times till I get the Coke (sometimes some trademarked brands are way down -maybe below the fold.)

At a lot of restaurants, I ask for a Coke and I'm told "Would Pepsi be OK?"

That's likely because restaurants have exclusivity deals with either supplier to get a discount - Coke gets you Coke, Sprite and Fanta, Pepsi gets you Mirinda, Pepsi and 7up. It's not the restaurant blocking you with fake advertising, but just stating that they simply don't have it.

Now if they were getting supplied by both, then asking the same, that would be a better analogy.

If they have both, in some places, you're likely to be asked "What kind of coke?" to which "Pepsi," is an acceptable answer.

That’s only due to a regionalism where ‘coke’ means fizzy drink, soda pop, etc. not because of sales incentives.

Right, which makes it a genericized trademark.

> It should be illegal for the salesperson to put the KitchenAid product behind a mixer from another manufacturer, just because the other manufacturer paid them to.

This seems insane to me. I can't believe how hungry for legislation people are. If I own a store I should be able to stock anything I want and arrange it however I want. Why should the US government get a say in that?

Eh, a trademark doesn't mean you own a word. You only own the exclusive right to use that word within a few explicitly defined contexts.

More explicitly, you own the shape within a certain, limited in scope, industry (sometimes in broader industry).

Most trademarks that contain everyday words must explicitly state no ownership claim of such words, but instead claim ownership of the shape of the word (and sometimes color) within a specific context, ie. "Apple".

For most trademarks, this usually means shape of the logo is what is protected, not the word used inside the logo.

So while you could create a lawn mowing service called "Apple" without any legal issue, you cannot use the exact shape of the letters (ie, font) in the Apple logo.

> So while you could create a lawn mowing service called "Apple" without any legal issue, you cannot use the exact shape of the letters (ie, font) in the Apple logo.

The wider problem is that even if they don’t have the right to the broader usage of the term, they do have billions more dollars than you and can sue you into submission. Even when the apple happens to be a different fruit: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/354644

Other indexes used to honor trademark owners.

Why not have the trademark office charge trademark owners right to maintain trademark fees.

It’s just unseemly. I believe the EU is looking at this situation, so I’m not alone in this view.

They effectively do. You pay fees to register the trademark, and continue to pay fees to maintain it every 10 years thereafter.

The law isn't super clear here, but nobody has put up a serious legal challenge against this practice since Rosetta Stone sued Google over it back in 2012. Google was awarded summary judgement against Rosetta Stone for its practice of selling bids for searches for Rosetta Stone's trademarks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone_Ltd._v._Google,_....

There have been earlier legal challenges to this practice as well, but none has resulted in a clear opinion that it is unlawful.

GoogleAds has a system like this behind the scene where trademark holders need to whitelist the specific GoogleAds accounts that want to use their trademark keywords.

No idea how widely used or effective this is though.

> I never heard of rumble...

I wonder why

This is a good example of feature bloat that hampers Google’s search product, making them less competitive.

Of course, Google’s dominance allows them to do this without much damage ... for now.