A federal appeals court has revived the bulk of language-software maker Rosetta Stone’s trademark infringement lawsuit against Google Inc. This opinion is the first appellate decision to address whether Google’s sale of other companies’ trademarks for sponsored links could give rise to liability for trademark infringement. In a lawsuit filed in 2009, Rosetta Stone accused Google of committing trademark infringement by selling the language-software maker’s trademarks to third-party advertisers for use as search keywords. In 2010, a Virginia district court dismissed the case, finding that the sale of the keywords was not likely to confuse consumers.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has now overturned most of the lower court’s ruling, reviving claims that Google committed direct trademark infringement and diluted the Rosetta Stone brand. Chief Judge William Traxler, writing for the three-judge panel, said:
A reasonable trier of fact could find that Google intended to cause confusion in that it acted with the knowledge that confusion was very likely to result from its use of the marks.
Rosetta Stone accused Google of profiting by allowing rivals to purchase trademarked keywords that generate links to their sites when users enter those search terms. Google allows advertisers to buy the top “sponsored link” ad on search result pages. Rosetta Stone argued that people searching for its products on Google were being redirected to competitors and software counterfeiters.
The language-software maker presented deposition testimony of five consumers who attempted to buy bogus Rosetta Stone software after Google started allowing use of trademarks in the text of sponsored links in 2009. It appears that evidence persuaded the 4th Circuit panel to revive the trademark infringement and dilution claims. The panel also cited an internal Google study finding that even sophisticated consumers were sometimes unaware that sponsored links were advertisements.
The appeals court also reinstated Rosetta Stone’s trademark dilution claims. The lower court had granted summary judgment in Google’s favor, finding that the Internet giant was not trying to pass off its own goods and services as Rosetta Stone’s. But the 4th Circuit ruled that fact could not defeat the dilution claims. The panel directed the lower court to reconsider when Google first appeared to dilute the Rosetta Stone trademark, and whether that trademark was “famous” at the time.
Cliff Sloan, a lawyer with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, located in Washington, D.C., represents Rosetta Stone. He has done a very good job in getting this case back on track. The case is Rosetta Stone Ltd v. Google Inc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (No. 10-2007).
Source: Claims Journal
Contact us today for a free legal consultation with an experienced attorney.
Fields marked *may be required for submission.
If you would like to subscribe to the Jere Beasley Report digital edition, simply visit our Subscriptions page and provide the necessary information or call us at 800-898-2034.
Attorney Advertising - Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.