There has been sufficient discussion of the GEICO trademark infringement case to prompt David Drummon, Google's VP and General Counsel, to post an entry on the Google blog. It's a good spin, claiming that Judge Brinkema's recent ruling is a total win for Google. Drummong summarizes that Google won a clear victory last year in a summary judgment against GEICO, and that last week's ruling, in which Brinkema awarded merit to GEICO's claim of consumer confusion over ads whose text copy uses the word "GEICO," aligns perfectly with Google's AdWords policies. That is true, and Google has asserted as much throughout this case.

But Drummond's post notwithstanding, I still don't understand how Brinkema's instruction to reach a settlement leaves Google in anything other than a vulnerasble position. Presumably (this is just my guess), Google will refuse to settle, as that would admit to a shred of guilt, and let the case go to trial. Then, it will be demonstrated in court arguments that GEICO's confusion argument should be addressed to individual advertisers, not to Google. Whether this argument will prevail seems far from certain. Google might be confident, but it seems rather a stretch to say that Brinkema's latest ruling is "of little significance to Google." But I'm not an attorney.