Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>Online Exclusive:</i></b> Google Opts to Make a Deal in AdWords Spat with Rosetta Stone
Google Inc. has given up the fight in a closely-watched case accusing the company of infringing trademarks and facilitating the sale of counterfeit goods.
The Arlington, VA-based language software company Rosetta Stone Inc. agreed on Oct. 31 to drop claims that its trademarks were infringed by Google's system for generating online ads based on Internet searches. While the terms of the settlement are confidential, the companies said in a joint statement that they will now “work together to help law enforcement officials around the world go after counterfeiters at the source.” (See the press release from Rosetta Stone here.)
The suit challenged fundamental features of Google's most profitable product, AdWords, which generates online ads based on Internet search terms. Online advertisers pay Google to generate “sponsored links” to their products when users search certain keywords. But according to Rosetta Stone, Google crossed legal boundaries when it sold trademarked keywords like “Rosetta Stone,” “language library,” and “global traveller” to third-party advertisers — including companies hoping to capitalize on Rosetta Stone's marks to sell counterfeit software.
Rosetta and its original lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher sued Google in U.S. district court in Alexandria, VA, in 2009, alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unjust enrichment. Rosetta Stone later swapped Gibson Dunn for a team from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
U.S. Distirct Judge Gerald Lee sided with Google and its lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in 2010, ruling on summary judgment that “no reasonable trier of fact could find that Google's practice of auctioning Rosetta Stone's trademarks as keyword triggers to third party advertisers creates a likelihood to confusion as to the source and origin of Rosetta Stone's products.”
Rosetta Stone's lawyers at Skadden appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Web companies like eBay Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. penned amicus briefs supporting Google, while the International Trademark Association and companies like Ford Motor Company and Carfax, Inc. supported Rosetta Stone. In April 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit partially reversed Lee and remanded the case, pointing out that Google's own witnesses had trouble distinguishing between Rosetta Stone's ads and the ads Google generated for its competitors. (See, “Fourth Circuit Speaks Rosetta Stone's Language in Google Suit,” National Law Journal, April 9, 2012.)
Jan Wolfe writes for The Litigation Daily, an ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy.
The Arlington, VA-based language software company Rosetta Stone Inc. agreed on Oct. 31 to drop claims that its trademarks were infringed by
The suit challenged fundamental features of
Rosetta and its original lawyers at
U.S. Distirct Judge Gerald Lee sided with
Rosetta Stone's lawyers at Skadden appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Web companies like
Jan Wolfe writes for The Litigation Daily, an ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.