Branded queries in Google: how to protect your brand from competitor ads (2026)

Branded search is the moment when a person already knows your name and is actively trying to reach you. When competitors appear on those queries, the risk is not only lost clicks — it can be confusion, higher acquisition costs, and customer-support noise. In 2026, the practical goal is to defend intent without misleading users, while staying inside Google Ads policy and common trademark principles.

What is actually allowed on brand terms in 2026

In most markets, competitors can bid on your brand name as a keyword. That part often surprises teams, but it reflects how search auctions work: keyword targeting determines when an ad can show, while policies focus more heavily on what the ad claims and how it presents identity.

Where problems begin is usually ad copy and landing-page presentation. If a competitor uses your trademark in the ad text (or creates the impression they are you, or officially connected to you), that is the area most likely to trigger policy action or legal risk. Keyword bidding alone is typically treated differently from confusing “source of origin” signals.

Google’s trademark handling is largely complaint-driven: the trademark owner (or authorised representative) normally needs to submit a complaint for review. If Google agrees the use is not permitted under its rules for the relevant region and scenario, the trademark may be restricted in ad text for that advertiser.

Trademark policy basics you should bake into your process

Separate two objectives: brand protection as a marketing channel and trademark protection as a policy/legal matter. The marketing side is about winning the branded intent with relevance and clarity. The trademark side is about stopping misleading use in ad text or confusing presentation.

Adopt one internal rule that prevents avoidable issues: do not use competitor trademarks in your own ad copy unless you have explicit permission or a clearly permitted scenario. Even where something might be arguably defensible, it often creates disapprovals, complaints, and wasted time.

Keep evidence ready. If you need to report misuse, you will move faster when you can show the exact search term, date/time, location, screenshots, the advertiser identity, the ad text, and the landing page. Treat it like a small incident-response workflow rather than a one-off argument.

Defensive strategy that reduces leakage without playing dirty

The strongest defence is making it obvious that your result is the official route. Build a dedicated brand campaign with tight matching for your core brand terms, common misspellings, and high-intent modifiers (login, support, pricing, app, reviews). Keep brand and non-brand separate so budgets and reporting stay clean.

Use ad assets to occupy more useful space and answer intent quickly: sitelinks to official sections, structured snippets for key categories, callouts for service promises that are true, and location/call assets where relevant. This often beats “just bid higher”, because it increases expected CTR and relevance — which can reduce cost for the same visibility.

Align landing pages with the query intent. If the query suggests “login”, send people to the login page. If it suggests “support”, send them to support. When the user gets the right official destination instantly, competitor ads lose their biggest advantage: friction and doubt.

Campaign structure that stays compliant and measurable

Use three layers: (1) Brand core terms (exact/phrase), (2) Brand + intent modifiers (pricing, support, app, reviews, careers), and (3) Misspellings/variants. Add negatives between layers to avoid internal competition and to keep data readable.

Use audiences to adjust bids, not to blur identity. The ethical version of defence is: help people who already want you reach the right official path faster than anyone else can. Avoid anything that imitates competitor names, suggests affiliation, or makes the advertiser identity unclear.

Measure defence beyond “impression share”. Track paid + organic combined click share on branded terms, assisted conversions, time-to-conversion, and signals of misrouting (support tickets like “I clicked the wrong ad”). If defence is working, you typically see less confusion even if competitors still appear sometimes.

Monitoring, escalation, and the non-toxic response playbook

Monitoring should be routine. In 2026, a practical cadence is weekly checks of top branded queries, Auction Insights for your brand campaign, and a short log of competitor messaging patterns. Your goal is to distinguish normal competition from misleading behaviour.

When you suspect misuse, capture evidence properly: query, timestamp, location, screenshot, advertiser name, and landing page. Then choose the right response: a policy complaint for trademark-in-ad-text misuse, legal escalation only for repeated harmful conduct, or strategic defence if it’s simply aggressive bidding with clear branding.

Keep responses proportional. Overbidding without controls can damage efficiency, and aggressive threats for ordinary keyword bidding can create unnecessary friction. A calm, evidence-based workflow protects budget, reduces confusion, and maintains credibility if escalation becomes necessary.

How to file a complaint and what to expect

If a competitor is using your trademark in ad text in a way that appears unauthorised or misleading, the most direct route is a trademark complaint through Google’s official process. This is usually the fastest path to restrictions on ad text use, because it maps to policy review rather than long disputes.

Operationally, assign a clear owner (often PPC + legal), use a standard evidence template, and maintain a list of protected marks and variants. If you operate internationally, note that trademark rights and enforcement can differ by jurisdiction, so what is restricted in one country may be handled differently in another.

Do not ignore product and UX. If competitor ads win because your official journey is slow, unclear, or mismatched to intent, the sustainable fix is on-site: faster pages, clearer navigation, stronger trust cues, and destinations that match branded intent. That reduces leakage without relying on aggressive bidding.