You may remember a couple of weeks ago the internet giant Google banned ads for Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ re-election campaign that were critical of MoveOn.org. Google said that they were pulled because they violated Google’s trademark policy. A policy that is now known not to exist. MoveOn also sent a "cease and desist" letter to CafePress demanding that ads for T-shirts demeaning of MoveOn also be pulled.
Now The Milwaukee Examiner has obtained internal documents that show that both Google and MoveOn were full of it with their claimed policies and reasons given publicly for bans.
MoveOn.org filed its trademark complaint with Google on Sept.19 in the midst of the bitter public debate generated by the Petraeus ad. On the same day, MoveOn.org’s Carrie Olson sent a “cease and desist” letter to CafePress.com demanding that the online merchandiser stop selling anti-MoveOn.org T-shirts designed by “Waitress Polly,” a blogger from a military family who created the T-shirts to protest the “General Betray Us” ad.
None of the complaints filed by MoveOn.org with Google or CafePress.com asserted that a “third party” was making fraudulent use of MoveOn.org’s name to collect financial contributions.
Olson, who is MoveOn.org’s chief operating officer, alleged trademark infringement and threatened legal action against CafePress.com if it did not take down the critical ads. She also demanded contact information for ‘Waitress Polly’ and that all orders the anti-MoveOn.org T-shirt be stopped. CafePress.com did as demanded.
Also on Sept. 19, MoveOn.org’s Erik Olson — husband of Carrie Olson — filed a trademark complaint with Google seeking to block any mention of MoveOn.org by any advertiser for any reason, including ads that criticize MoveOn.org by name.
It was this complaint that Google cited as the basis for banning Sen. Collins’ anti-MoveOn.org ads. Google’s complaint form used by MoveOn.org required that the trademark owner make a legal affirmation that the complainant has a “good faith belief” that the use of the trademark is not “permissible under law.”
MoveOn.org, however, did not cite any specific ad, nor did it provide Google with any evidence of trademark infringement. The advocacy group has since said publicly that the Collins ads are permissible under the law.
Google told Collins campaign officials that the company’s “trademark team” was still investigating MoveOn.org’s complaint when The Examiner’s Oct. 11 story was published.
Google hasn’t said how the Collins’ ads were flagged for removal if Google had not yet made a decision on the validity of MoveOn.org’s sweeping trademark claims.
Google also hasn’t explained how MoveOn.org knew Google had a policy that permits trademark owners to implement a universal ban on use of the advocacy group’s name in any Google ad when no such policy is described on the Google Web site.
Likewise, Google could not say how the Collins campaign, or any advertiser, would be expected to know that “MoveOn.org” was a “banned” term since Google does not make such information available to advertisers and does not “auto-reject” ads with banned trademark terms.
Finally, Google hasn’t explained why the Collins campaign was informed Oct. 8 that its anti-MoveOn.org ads were removed due to a “trademark policy violation” when there is no such policy contained in Google’s “terms of service.”
More reading here as the Examiner lays out the Google, MoveOn.org Timeline.
Waitress Polly who received the cease and desist order from MoveOn has the great video below, or visit her blog.
Thanks to Ron at Likelihood of Success for the heads up.










