Bidding on competitor names in search ads

A practice owner opens the search terms report and sees that patients are finding a rival clinic by typing its name. The next thought is obvious: should our ad show up when people search for them? The other practice may see it differently, and so can a court, a licensing board or a patient who thought they were booking with someone else.

This guide covers one question: using another practice’s or another doctor’s name to trigger, or to appear in, your search ads. Naming or comparing a competitor in the ad itself is covered in our guide to comparative advertising and naming competitors, trademark basics for images, music and names are in our copyright and image rights guide, and campaign setup for one specialty is in Google Ads for chiropractors. For running the same campaigns on Bing, see our guide to Microsoft Advertising for medical practices.

This is general information, not legal advice. Sources cited were checked on October 31, 2026: 15 USC 1114(1), 1125(a)(1), 1127 and 1052(e)(4) and (f); the Ninth Circuit opinion in Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., No. 10-55840 (filed March 8, 2011); the Google Ads Trademarks policy and the Google Ads Help page on keyword insertion (as shown on October 31, 2026); 15 USC 45(a)(1); Texas Occupations Code 101.201; 22 Texas Administrative Code 164.3; Florida Statutes 456.072(1)(a); New York Civil Rights Law section 50. We found no federal rule or agency guidance written for healthcare practices bidding on competitor names as such. Courts in different circuits have decided keyword cases on their own facts, and state law and board rules differ, so have a health care attorney review your plan before you launch.

The short version

There are three different things here: a competitor’s name as a keyword that triggers your ad, the name inside your ad text, and the name inserted into your ad automatically. The risk is different for each.
Federal trademark law makes a use of another’s mark in advertising actionable when it is likely to cause confusion (15 USC 1114(1)), and makes a use of a name actionable when it is likely to confuse people about affiliation, connection or sponsorship (15 USC 1125(a)(1)(A)).
The Ninth Circuit held that buying another company’s trademark as a search keyword is a use in commerce under the Lanham Act, and that the question is whether the ads, as they appear on the results page, are likely to confuse. It vacated an injunction where that showing was not made.
Google’s Trademarks policy, as shown on October 31, 2026, says Google will not restrict trademarks used as keywords, but will restrict a direct competitor’s use of a trademark in ad text after a trademark owner complains.
State law adds two layers: board rules against misleading advertising, such as Texas Occupations Code 101.201, and laws on using a living person’s name in advertising, such as New York Civil Rights Law section 50.
Our recommendation: do not put another practice’s or doctor’s name in your ad text, turn off keyword insertion in any ad group that holds a competitor keyword, and decide on competitor keywords in writing with counsel.

Three things people mean by “bidding on a competitor”

The phrase covers three setups, and they are not the same.

Keyword only. The other practice’s name is in your keyword list. When someone searches it, your ad can show, and the ad itself names only your practice.
Name in ad text. The headline or description includes the other practice’s or doctor’s name, for example in a comparison or in a line such as “Looking for [competitor]?”.
Keyword insertion. Google Ads Help explains that keyword insertion updates your ad with the keyword in your ad group that caused the ad to show. If a competitor’s name is one of those keywords, the competitor’s name can end up in your headline even though nobody wrote it there.

The second and third setups carry the higher risk, because that is where a patient sees the other name next to yours. The first setup still carries risk, which the next sections explain.

What federal trademark law says

The Lanham Act gives a registered mark owner a claim against anyone who, without consent, uses a copy or colorable imitation of the mark in commerce in connection with the advertising of goods or services, where that use is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception (15 USC 1114(1)(a)). A practice name can be a service mark: the statute defines a service mark as a mark used in the sale or advertising of services to identify and distinguish them from the services of others and to indicate their source (15 USC 1127).

Registration is not the only route. Section 43(a) of the Act gives a claim to anyone likely to be damaged by a use of any word, term or name in commerce that is likely to cause confusion as to the affiliation, connection or association of one person with another, or as to the sponsorship or approval of their services (15 USC 1125(a)(1)(A)). An unregistered clinic name, or a doctor’s own name, can be the basis for that claim.

A doctor’s surname alone faces a hurdle at registration: the statute bars registering a mark that is primarily merely a surname (15 USC 1052(e)(4)), unless it has become distinctive of the owner’s services in commerce (15 USC 1052(f)). That is a rule about registration. It does not let a competitor use the name in a confusing way.

What one appeals court said about keyword ads

In Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., No. 10-55840 (9th Cir. March 8, 2011), one software company bought a competitor’s product name as a keyword on Google and Bing, so its own sponsored link appeared when people searched for the competitor’s product. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction against the keyword use.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the Second Circuit that using a trademark as a search engine keyword to trigger a competitor’s ad is a use in commerce under the Lanham Act. It then held that the trial court had applied the confusion factors too rigidly. For a keyword case, the court named four factors as the ones that matter the strength of the mark, evidence of actual confusion, the type of goods and the degree of care a buyer is likely to use, and the labeling and appearance of the ads and the surrounding context on the results page. It found the showing of likely confusion insufficient, vacated the injunction, and reversed and remanded.

Read this case for what it is. It is one circuit, it concerned business software buyers, and it turned on how the ads looked. The court said the labeling of the ad and the whole results page must be considered. Two points carry over to a medical practice. First, keyword bidding is not outside trademark law; the case is about whether the facts show confusion. Second, the factors look at the patient: how careful the searcher is likely to be, and whether the ad makes clear whose ad it is. A patient searching for a specific doctor by name, in pain or in a hurry, is a different searcher from a software buyer comparing products. We found no appellate ruling on keyword bidding between medical practices.

What Google’s Trademarks policy restricts

Platform policy is not law, and it changes, so check it on the day you plan a campaign. As shown on October 31, 2026, the Google Ads Trademarks policy says:

When a trademark owner submits a complaint, Google reviews it and may restrict use of the trademark.
Google will not restrict using trademarks as keywords.
Google will restrict using trademarks in an ad from a direct competitor, and ads that use the trademark in a confusing, deceptive or misleading way.
The trademark must be used in the ad, not only on the landing page, for the review criteria to apply.
Google accepts complaints only against specific advertisers identified by URL, within the countries and industries where the owner has shown trademark rights, and a restriction is generally applied on an ongoing basis to ads using the same second-level domain in their final URL.

So Google’s policy leaves keyword bidding alone, and acts on a complaint about a rival’s name in ad text. Neither part decides the legal question. A keyword Google allows can still lead to a Lanham Act claim if the ad that shows makes a patient think they are booking with the practice they searched for.

The keyword insertion trap

Google Ads Help says keyword insertion updates your ads with the ad group keyword that caused the ad to show, and that ads using it should remain within Google Ads policies. Put a competitor’s name in an ad group that uses keyword insertion, and the ad can read as if it were the competitor’s own ad. That is ad text use by a direct competitor, the use the Trademarks policy restricts on complaint, and it is the setup with the highest risk of confusing a patient about who they are calling.

No federal rule speaks to keyword insertion in healthcare ads. We recommend keeping competitor keywords, if you use them at all, in their own ad group with fixed ad text that names only your practice.

When the name is a doctor’s name

A patient may search for a doctor by name. A practice that bids on another physician’s name, or a former associate’s name, is closer to the problem the statute names: confusion about affiliation, connection or sponsorship (15 USC 1125(a)(1)(A)). If the ad leads a patient to believe that doctor works at your practice, or endorses it, that is the confusion the claim is built on.

State laws on a person’s name add to this. New York Civil Rights Law section 50 makes it a misdemeanor for a person, firm or corporation to use the name, portrait, picture, likeness or voice of a living person for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without that person’s written consent. Other states have their own rules, so ask counsel about the states where you advertise.

One case needs its own note: a doctor who has left your practice. No federal rule addresses it for practices as such. We recommend you stop bidding on the departed doctor’s name and remove it from ad text and landing pages once they leave, unless your counsel advises otherwise in writing.

State licensing board rules

Licensing boards judge the ad the patient sees, not your keyword list. Two examples, with the text as checked on October 31, 2026:

Texas Occupations Code 101.201 bars health care professional advertising that is false, misleading, deceptive or not readily subject to verification. Its list includes advertising that makes a material misrepresentation of fact or omits a fact needed to keep the statement from being materially misleading, and advertising that compares one health care professional’s services with another’s unless the comparison can be factually substantiated (101.201(a), (b)(1) and (b)(3)). The Texas Medical Board’s rule at 22 Texas Administrative Code 164.3 repeats that advertising cannot be false, deceptive or misleading and adds its own list.
Florida Statutes 456.072(1)(a) makes misleading, deceptive or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of the licensee’s profession a ground for discipline.

An ad that shows on a search for another doctor and leaves the patient thinking they reached that doctor’s office is the kind of material misrepresentation these rules describe. Check your own state’s statute and board rule, and the rule for each profession you employ.

The FTC Act also applies. It declares unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce unlawful (15 USC 45(a)(1)). An ad or landing page that implies a connection with another practice that does not exist is a deception question under that section as well.

When your practice’s name is the one being bid on

You may be on the other side of this. Before you send a demand letter, check what is happening and what you can do.

Search your own name and record what shows: the ad text, the label and the landing page. Under the Network Automation factors, the labeling and appearance of the ad and the results page matter.
If the competitor uses your name in ad text, Google’s Trademarks policy offers a complaint route. Google accepts complaints only where you have shown trademark rights in that country and industry.
Run your own brand campaign on your own name, so a patient searching for you sees your ad.
If patients have called the wrong office because of an ad, write down the facts each time. Evidence of actual confusion is one of the factors the Ninth Circuit named.
Talk to a trademark attorney before you contact the other practice. A letter that overstates your rights can create its own problems.

Questions to ask your agency before a competitor campaign

Which competitor names are in our keyword lists today, including names added by automated keyword suggestions?
Does any ad group with a competitor keyword use keyword insertion or automatically created assets that could place that name in our ad?
Does any ad text, sitelink or landing page mention another practice or doctor by name?
Who reviews the search terms report, and how fast do they add a doctor’s name as a negative keyword if we decide not to target it?
Is there a written decision, with counsel’s input, for each competitor name we target?
What will we do if a competitor complains or a patient tells us they thought they had reached another office?

Use and avoid

Use: ad text that names only your practice, your doctors and your services.
Use: a landing page that makes clear at the top whose practice it is.
Use: a brand campaign on your own practice name.
Use: negative keywords for doctors’ names you decide not to target, including former associates.
Avoid: another practice’s or doctor’s name in a headline, description, sitelink or call asset.
Avoid: keyword insertion in any ad group that holds a competitor keyword.
Avoid: lines such as “Looking for [competitor]?” or “Formerly [doctor]’s patients” without counsel’s sign-off.
Avoid: comparisons with a named practice you cannot back with facts.

An illustration

This example is invented. [Practice name], a family dental practice, sees in its search terms report that its ads already show on searches for a nearby practice’s name, because of a broad match keyword. The owner asks the agency whether to target that name on purpose. The agency shows them three things: the searches that triggered the ads, an ad group that used keyword insertion, and two recent calls where the caller asked for the other practice by name.

The owner decides, with their attorney, not to target the other practice’s name. The agency adds that name and the names of the other practice’s dentists as negative keywords, turns off keyword insertion, and sets up a brand campaign on [Practice name]’s own name. Front desk staff note any caller who asks for another office, so the practice can see whether the problem stops.

Checklist

Keyword lists reviewed for other practices’ and doctors’ names, including automated suggestions.
No competitor or other doctor named in ad text, assets or landing pages.
Keyword insertion off in any ad group with a competitor keyword.
Landing page shows your practice name and doctors at the top.
Former associates’ names handled by a written decision.
Board advertising rules for your state and each profession checked.
Written decision, with counsel’s input, for any competitor keyword you keep.
Brand campaign on your own name in place.
Calls from confused patients logged.

How we help

We build websites, local and organic search, Google Ads and lead generation and an AI front desk for independent practices. For competitor names, that means search campaigns built on your own name, services and location, with no other practice or doctor named in your ads, and competitor keywords used only after a written decision with your counsel. Our tools are built with HIPAA in mind. We confirm in writing what a BAA covers before any patient information flows through a tool, and if it is not covered, we do not route patient information through it. We are not a healthcare provider and we do not give legal or medical advice. For the wider rules, see our healthcare marketing rules guide.

Is it legal to bid on a competitor’s practice name in Google Ads?

No statute bans it as such, and Google’s Trademarks policy says it will not restrict trademarks used as keywords. The legal question under the Lanham Act is whether your ad, as it appears, is likely to confuse patients about who you are or whether you are connected (15 USC 1114(1), 1125(a)(1)(A)). The Ninth Circuit treated keyword buying as a use in commerce and looked at the ad’s labeling and the results page. Decide with counsel.

Can we put the other practice’s name in our ad headline?

We recommend you do not. Google’s policy restricts a direct competitor’s use of a trademark in ad text after a complaint, and a name in your headline is the likeliest place for a patient to think they reached the other office, which state board rules such as Texas Occupations Code 101.201(b)(1) address.

Can we bid on a doctor’s name who used to work here?

Their name can support a false affiliation claim under 15 USC 1125(a)(1)(A) if the ad suggests they still practice with you, and state laws can restrict using a living person’s name in advertising without written consent, such as New York Civil Rights Law section 50. We recommend you stop once they leave unless counsel advises otherwise.

What is keyword insertion and why does it matter here?

Google Ads Help explains that keyword insertion updates your ad with the ad group keyword that caused it to show. With a competitor’s name in that ad group, the name can appear in your ad text automatically. Turn it off in any ad group with a competitor keyword.

A competitor is bidding on our name. What can we do?

Record what the ad says and where it leads, log any patient who reached the wrong office, run a brand campaign on your own name, and if your name appears in their ad text, use Google’s trademark complaint route. Speak to a trademark attorney before contacting the other practice.

Bidding on a competitor’s name in search ads: trademark law, Google policy and board rules for practices