For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Friday, 30 April 2010

Breaking News: Google win in Rosetta Stone Adwords case


Google's motion for summary judgment was granted by US District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the Eastern District of Virginia (4th Circuit) in the trade mark infringement and AdWords litigation brought against them by Rosetta Stone. This marks the latest of three cases (Geico v Google and Rescuecom v Google) to have gone before a judge in the U.S., but again without a full trial on the issue of likelihood of confusion in an AdWords case. Tom Adams, CEO of Rosetta Stone stated:

“This is a setback for us in our effort to right a wrong, To not allow a case like this to go before a jury is very disappointing for us.”
In 2009 Rosetta Stone, a provider of foreign language educational materials, commenced proceedings against Google in relation to Google's use of their trade mark name as part of Google's AdWords program (see previous AmeriKat reports here). Rosetta Stone alleged that Google "used" the marks under the Lanham Act by selling the words to third-parties and that use created a likelihood of confusion by directing users to Rosetta's competitors.

Judge Lee has yet to issue his formal decision. As soon as he does, Rosetta Stone will reportedly consider whether or not to appeal.

The AmeriKat will bring news and comment on Judge Lee's decision as soon as she can get her tabby paws on it.
In the meantime you can watch what the IPKat's AdWords panel had to say about the Court of Justice ruling in the Google AdWords case and the US AdWords position here.

It has to be said - its been a good couple of days for Google!

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

is judge lee's decision out?

Annsley Merelle Ward said...

Yup, it came out a couple of weeks ago. Nothing surprising. Basically - evidence of confusion was de minimus and the evidence on intent on behalf of Google was unconvincing.

To see the opinion click this link - http://tinyurl.com/37nh8ft

Also look, here for more info:

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/08/google_gets_com.htm

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':