A Federal judge last week dismissed [1.7MB PDF] a trademark infringement case against Google, which was accused of infringing on the trademark “Rescuecom” by allowing others to purchase the term as a keyword to trigger sponsored search engine results.

Is this a “dog bites man” story? No, because on the Internet, famously, no-one knows you’re a dog. Things that would pass for perfectly normal in real life require special scrutiny on the Internet.

The judge ruled that Google’s use of the name did not constitute, er, use under U.S. trademark law. That ruling satisfied the senior iitigation counsel for Google, Michael Kwun, but it doesn’t satisfy me. Eric Goldman, in a nice succinct commentary on the ruling, says other judges’ rulings have been all over the map, and wonders if this one will settle the controversy.

I would have liked to hear the judge enunciate the principle that you’re allowed to compare brands in commerce, or rather, to have brands compared for you. The idea that an Internet search, unlike any other place of commerce, should not allow comparison shopping, seems absurd. If a TV network can take money from Coke for an ad that says “better than Pepsi”, Google ought to be allowed to generate sponsored results triggered by brand names.

BUT BUT it’s different — a user can’t search on TV. Yes, that’s right — and thank god for innovation. But just because we have finally escaped the tyranny of the one-way communication of the Tube doesn’t mean that comparison shopping should be illegal.

Curiously, one of Rescuecom’s claims is that Google prevented people from reaching their web page. As of this writing, they’ve found a more effective way — their URL has stopped resolving.

By way of CNET, by way of GigaLaw.

Posted by Antony in: Search