Then imagine multiplying those numbers by the dollar amounts needed to get the same number of impressions at today's market value, adding penalties and damages can get quite significant. There is no doubt that when Williams-Sonoma offered Bodum products, having the “bodum” keyword results page on the website, optimized for search engines, made a lot of sense. I don't know if the keyword just remained cached in the e-commerce website's system after Bodum was dropped as a vendor, but I think it probably could have been retained accidentally, which caused the keyword results page to continue to rank highly in
Google Search Results after they no longer carry Bodum products. Concerningly, I also believe that Williams-Sonoma's PPC ad campaigns may also have caused a risk of increased damage exposure in this case, if found to be infringed due jewelry retouching service to the "Bodum" search results page. . I found that Williams-Sonoma continued to show ads for “Bodum” searches in Google, even after the lawsuit was launched, although they apparently stopped showing their “related searches” page for organic search. as the trial began to escalate. Williams-Sonoma advertising products for keyword search results "
Bodum French Press".While it is generally not considered an offense to run online advertisements targeting competitors' brand names, if it is determined that they have infringed, ad targeting could also be considered further evidence of an overall effort to unfairly divert sales from Bodum and could also have been seen as part of a confusing sequence in which consumers could be tricked into thinking that the Williams-Sonoma French presses were actually