Pick your metaphor: whack-a-mole, wild goose chase, drops in the ocean. Google’s Kent Walker, senior vice president and general counsel, prefers cartoon critters. “It’s a cat-and-mouse game,” he says, “where we are constantly working to improve our practices and tune our systems to keep out the bad guys.” Walker is talking, of course, about...

Want to read more?

Register to access two of our subscriber only articles per month

Subscribe for unlimited access to articles, in-depth analysis and research from the World Trademark Review experts

Already registered? Log in

What our customers are saying

The searchable online World Trademark Review database is a valuable research tool.

IP director
Maus Frères/Lacoste


Subscribe to World Trademark Review to receive access to the full range of trademark intelligence, insight, and case law, as well as our guides, rankings and daily market insight delivered to your inbox.

Why subscribe?


Please log in or register to leave a comment.

RE: Google cranks up the anti-counterfeiting gears, aims for allied fight

Good question, Gareth. But 95% is not 100%, so parties other than Google must have noticed some infringing ads, meaning that some ads were live. I would assume that Google's 95% figure comprises both categories of cases you mention, so it would indeed be useful to see the breakdown. I'll enquire with Google and report back should the company respond.

Anonymous user, on 21 Mar 2011 @ 14:53

RE: Google cranks up the anti-counterfeiting gears, aims for allied fight

It would be interesting to know at what stage of the process the accounts were removed, e.g. was it once the offending ads had already been displayed, or only after they had been created but before they were ever publicly visible (i.e. when only Google could have had knowledge of the alleged impropriety by the account holder)? Is there any information on this?

Gareth Dickson, Locke Lord LLP on 21 Mar 2011 @ 14:48

Share this article