Offering one software together with the download of another software ("bundle") has become a popular practice in recent years. Business wise, it is a great distribution method - the user who chose to download a certain software is already in a state of mind to accept downloads so when during the installation he is offered to download another software (to which I shall refer to as the "bundled software"), he is more keen to accept the offer. In principle, it is not forbidden to use such practices and the largest internet companies cooperated in such manner (for example Google Toolbar was distributed that way together with Real Player). However, it should be done in a careful and non-aggressive manner. The user should be provided with a clear choice regarding the download of the bundled software and with adequate explanations and disclosures (besides accepting the End User License Agreement) about the features of this software. These principles apply to even greater extent when the bundled software consists of components which may seem potentially problematic in the eyes of the user. In conclusion, if the user experience does not allow the user to take a conscious decision whether he wishes to download the bundled software, the download was obtained by inappropriate means, which is unlawful. Besides the pure legal aspects of the situation, also from business standpoint this practice may turn out problematic, because such behaviour will likely ruin the goodwill of the bundled software and has the potential of adding it to the list of bad software detected by anti-spyware companies (which see "bundling" as a practice commonly used by spyware applications). Thus, you should review bundling business opportunities with great scrutiny and be careful in this respect.

The use of a competitor's trademark as a keyword triggering your sponsored link ad may be problematic. As of today (August 2006), the US case law in this regard is not conclusive. In Israel there is one recent judgment of the Tel Aviv District Court in the matter of Matim Li v. Crazy Line and Google (click here to go to our review of the judgment in the Israeli case law section of the website). In this judgment, Justive Altuvia ruled that there is nothing wrong in this practice. Nevertheless, we believe that trademark proprietors may try to overturn this ruling (also in other cases on this issue), and this issue might reach the Supreme Court, and until then it is not safe to say that the case law in Israel is conclusive. Thus, it might be a dangerous act on the part of an advertiser to use this practice, since it may lead to potential claims against it. Also, if the search engine is dragged into such legal action, the contractual relationships between search engines and advertiser usually provide that the advertiser is solely responsible with respect to such circumstances that lead to a claim, and is also responsible to indemnify the search engine for its costs in this regard. Thus, when the search engine and advertiser are both dragged into a claim, eventually if liability is found, the advertiser will bear the full responsibility.
In view of the above, advertisers should take these risks into consideration and take a conscious calculated business decision in this respect.

Basically, the question is circumstantial and legal advice is necessary. Nevertheless, as a general rule, copying a comptetior's website will most likely be found to be a violation of the competitor's intellectual property rights, as it may potentially be found as copyright infringement, passing off or unjust enrichment.