<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trademarks gone to far!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://waaronw.com/blog/annoyances/trademarks-gone-to-far/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://waaronw.com/blog/annoyances/trademarks-gone-to-far/</link>
	<description>Rants and ramblings and things in between.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:21:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://waaronw.com/blog/annoyances/trademarks-gone-to-far/comment-page-1/#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://waaronw.com/blog/?p=58#comment-17</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sure they do - it seems to not be in their best interest to help you follow the rules, no matter what logic would dictate.
This is an excerpt from a longer list that&#039;s put together via &quot;crowdsourcing&quot; if you will - people who have had disapproved ads submitting the words they got dinged on.
I have not vetted this list - something I should have mentioned above. However, I don&#039;t doubt most of them as they are trademarks in certain &lt;em&gt;narrow&lt;/em&gt; fields of business.
I&#039;m not going to link to the site here (though you can find it easily enough with - you guessed it - Google itself) because I suspect, if it gets too much coverage then Google will find some way to make life hard on the poster. If you find a page with a big table of trademarked words along with a smaller table of prohibited content words, you&#039;ve probably found it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sure they do &#8211; it seems to not be in their best interest to help you follow the rules, no matter what logic would dictate.<br />
This is an excerpt from a longer list that&#8217;s put together via &#8220;crowdsourcing&#8221; if you will &#8211; people who have had disapproved ads submitting the words they got dinged on.<br />
I have not vetted this list &#8211; something I should have mentioned above. However, I don&#8217;t doubt most of them as they are trademarks in certain <em>narrow</em> fields of business.<br />
I&#8217;m not going to link to the site here (though you can find it easily enough with &#8211; you guessed it &#8211; Google itself) because I suspect, if it gets too much coverage then Google will find some way to make life hard on the poster. If you find a page with a big table of trademarked words along with a smaller table of prohibited content words, you&#8217;ve probably found it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://waaronw.com/blog/annoyances/trademarks-gone-to-far/comment-page-1/#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:02:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://waaronw.com/blog/?p=58#comment-16</guid>
		<description>Where&#039;d you get the list?  Google supposedly protects its preclusion list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where&#8217;d you get the list?  Google supposedly protects its preclusion list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

