I received an email from someone at Commission Junction (CJ dot com) yesterday informing me that my Google PPC ads were appearing for trademarked keyword phrases that I’m not bidding on, and that their merchant’s keyword policy is to enforce negative keyword matching for their trademarks. More specifically, the brand is Banana Republic and basically they’re asking me to negative match all of their trademarked terms in my campaigns, even though I am not bidding on any of their terms, using any of their terms in my ad copy, nor driving users to the Banana Republic store page in my site. Here is the ad that appeared (and that they sent me a screen shot of) when the CJ rep or someone at BR did a search for “banana republic promo code,” which leads to the page here:

And here are their keyword terms:
Banana Republic reserves exclusive rights as to the advertising of our trademarked company name within all pay-for-placement and all other search engines. These names include: Gap, gap.com, Old Navy, oldnavy.com, Banana Republic, bananarepublic.com, Piperlime, piperlime.com and any variation/misspelling of our trademarked names. Additionally, you may not claim to be Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic, or Piperlime in any pay-for-placement or other search engines.
* No bidding on the brand terms (eg: “Banana Republic,” “bananarepublic.com,” etc.), misspellings and / or derivatives of the brand terms. These names include: Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic, Piperlime, gap.com, oldnavy.com, bananarepublic.com, piperlime.com, etc. and any variation/misspelling of our trademarked names.
* Brand terms, misspellings and / or derivative of brand terms must be set to negative match in keyword bids for all Search campaigns (exact and broad match on the brand terms are not allowed on trademarked terms such as “Banana Republic”, nor on misspellings and /or derivatives of the brand terms)
* Use of the brand terms, misspellings and / or derivatives is not allowed in ad title and ad copy of any Search campaigns
* Direct linking to the gap.com, oldnavy.com, bananarepublic.com, or piperlime.com domain is not allowed
* Cyber squatting through the misspelling or use of the brand terms, misspellings and / or derivatives within URL strings and domain names is not allowed
* Violations will be cause for affiliate’s immediate termination and any unpaid commissions will be unearned, disallowed and/or charged back.
So why does this annoy me so much? Well, what if I wasn’t their affiliate, and I had no BR/Gap/Piperlime deals on my site? Then they couldn’t enforce this rule; and my ads would be no different. However, since I coincidentally have their deals on my site and am signed up for their program, I am now required to negative match all of my existing campaigns for them? Also, their terms aren’t very clearly stated. Yes it says “Brand terms, misspellings and / or derivative of brand terms must be set to negative match in keyword bids for all Search campaigns,” but there is a qualifier immediately after that states “(exact and broad match on the brand terms are not allowed on trademarked terms such as “Banana Republic”, nor on misspellings and /or derivatives of the brand terms).” So what the hell are they saying?
I’m no lawyer, and I don’t want to get into some stupid trademark fight with Banana Republic so I’ll go ahead and do what they want, but what do you guys think? Honestly, this is jacked up in my opinion. BR just leaves a bad taste in my mouth now. I could understand if I was bidding on their trademarks or using them in my ads, but I’m not. I’ve never violated any trademark terms with any merchant and I take trademark policy very seriously, which is why I take such offense. Even Google recognizes the delicacy of these types of situations and has stated in their trademark policy that:
Advertisers may be restricted from using certain trademarks as ad text per the request of the trademark owner. In cases where the trademark owner claims rights to a term in countries outside the US, Canada,UK or Ireland, advertisers might not be allowed to use certain trademarks as keywords or as ad text per the request of the trademark owner.
In some instances, Google may not remove the ad or ads as requested. For example, with Google’s broad match keyword option, an ad can show on variations of a keyword term. As a result, an ad may show for a term that is a variation of an advertiser’s keyword. Even if the search query that shows the ad contains a trademarked term, Google will not remove an ad if the advertiser isn’t using a trademarked term as a keyword.
When Google receives a complaint from a trademark owner claiming rights in the US, Canada, UK and/or Ireland, Google will only investigate whether the advertisements at issue are using the trademarked term in the ad text. Google will not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint.
I’d be interested to hear what you guys think. Do you think it’s OK for affiliate merchants (or merchants in general if we’re looking at the bigger picture) to be allowed to enforce negative keyword matching for ads that happen to appear when a user does a search that includes their brand names? Am I now to also negative match every “misspelling” I can think of in order to save my own ass? Are there a lot of merchants doing this? (This is the first time I’ve been requested to do so.) And does this set a precedence for other affiliate merchants and merchant sites to be able to tell any advertisers they want to actively omit any keywords relating to their trademarks? At what point can advertisers not be sued or attacked during non-active participation? Your feedback is welcome and greatly appreciated.
[If you enjoy reading MsDanielle.com, please feel free to subscribe via RSS or get free email updates.]