Unfortunate: Appeals Court Revives Misguided Rosetta Stone Lawsuit Against Google
from the can't-we-get-this-straight-already?!? dept
There have been a number of silly lawsuits against Google for the fact that companies can buy AdWords ads based on trademarked terms. These lawsuits are problematic on a few different levels. First, using trademarked keywords to trigger ads isn't infringement. It's a perfectly reasonable use. In the same way that a supermarket often places coupons for certain brands/products near competing products, advertising competitors is perfectly reasonable. Second, even if there is trademark infringement, it should be limited to the advertiser itself, not to Google, who is merely the platform. Even though a few courts had more or less said this in the past, software company Rosetta Stone decided to sue anyway back in 2009. The lawsuit was dumped pretty quickly, with the court getting the big questions right (though it went a little weird on some of the finer points).Rosetta Stone appealed, and basically got every company who hates Google to join in on the fun. Not only that, but Rosetta Stone even used its loss as a reason to support SOPA's predecessor, COICA, saying that Google is "the gateway for criminals into America."
No, I'm not joking. Rosetta Stone literally said the fact that Google allows competitors to put up ads based on trademarked keywords makes it the (not "a", but "the") "gateway for criminals into America."
Unfortunately, rather than give the company the slap down it deserves, it appears that a somewhat confused appeals court is reviving the case and sending it back to the lower court to reconsider. The reasoning in this 7th Circuit ruling is extremely troubling on a variety of levels.
Quite amazingly, the court actually suggests that there's a possibility that Google is guilty of direct infringement of Rosetta Stone's trademarks. This makes no sense. Even if you somehow twisted things to make Google liable in some manner or another, the only possible liability has to be for secondary liability, because it's not the one directly making use of the trademarks in the first place. It's providing the platform and the advertisers are using the marks. This is pretty basic stuff, and it makes you wonder the technical literacy of the appeals court panel (or why they presume to judge a case where they clearly don't understand what they're talking about).
Another bizarre point is on the question of "intent." The court accepts much of Rosetta Stone's argument that because Google changed its policy over time to allow greater usage of trademarked terms, that it had intent to infringe. While that is one possible interpretation, there are much more sensible explanations that aren't so nefarious. Google stopped allowing the use of trademarked terms early on because it was a waste of time and resources to fight stupid lawsuits like this one. As it continued to grow, it realized that there was no legal reason why it shouldn't allow such uses, and it changed its policies. And, of course, it then gets hit with a stupid lawsuit... and the court seems to use the fact that Google changed its policy as potential evidence that it "intended to cause confusion"? That makes no sense at all. Google knows damn well that if it "intends to cause confusion" that it's going to lose a trademark lawsuit. Why would it ever do that? The company made clear that it expected to get sued, but it was doing this because it believed the law was on its side. It's quite a twist to claim "intent" to "cause confusion" based on that.
Next, the appeals court accepts as evidence of confusion, Rosetta Stone finding some guy who was confused by a counterfeit reseller's site and bought a counterfeit version of their software. Note that the guy was not confused by Google, but by the third party site. The lower court smartly rejected this as anecdotal and properly pointed out that the confusion arose not from Google, but from the other site. But the appeals court rejects that argument and says that the testimony is valid.
After that, the court also moves on to the question of contributory (rather than direct infringement) and bizarrely argues that the reasonable standard set forth in the famous Tiffany v. eBay case cannot be applied at the summary judgment level. This was the ruling that found that eBay was not guilty of contributory trademark infringement for counterfeit goods sold on eBay, in part because eBay made reasonable efforts to remove the infringing content when it became aware of it. This is a reasonable standard, and one that it makes sense to use in this case also, as the lower court did. However, the appeals court basically says that this standard can really only be used after a costly and wasteful trial, even if the court could get around all that by noting the obvious fact that the service provider is a good actor in getting rid of infringing works when it learns of them.
Things get equally troubling when we get down to the question of trademark dilution. The lower court rejected Rosetta Stone's arguments here on a few factors, but the appeals court sends that back too. Specifically, the lower court pointed out that there was no dilution because Google wasn't using the Rosetta Stone trademarks to identify its own (different) products, thus there was no dilution. This is the correct interpretation of the law, because the entire point of the (very new) concept of "dilution" in trademark law is that it can't be used to "dilute" the value of the trademark by applying it to different products. Here, no one is claiming that Google is making use of Rosetta Stone's marks to impart the value of that mark on something different. So the lower court got that right... but the appeals court gets confused and denies this reasoning, instead saying that this is really a "fair use" discussion, which can only be used as a defense, rather than a proactive argument at the summary judgment stage. Once again, that's batty. It only encourages long, drawn-out, wasteful and useless trials where none are needed.
The court did accept some of the more minor arguments of the lower court, but sent back all of the major issues. Hopefully the district court does a full trial and still comes to the same (correct and reasonable) conclusion, but in the meantime, they have to waste time and resources on a silly trial that was properly dumped in the first place.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: adwords, competition, trademark
Companies: google, rosetta stone
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Granodiorite is what the Rosetta stone is made off...
/rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rulings like this show that they don't understand the technology involved and what the difference is between the purported infringer and the platform being used. By this logic if someone advertised on a billboard using my trademarked words, I could sue the billboard maker, the billboard owner AND the entity who rented the space to the billboard owner. Does that make sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you can't raise a valid point because you don't have one then don't expect to be taken seriously.
If you can't be bothered to raise a valid point because you're too lazy then expect that no one can be bothered to take you seriously.
Trademark law is to prevent people from falsely representing an entity. One should be able to reference an entity's name in order to reference the entity, for instance, if criticizing that entity or giving it positive reviews or discussing it in general or selling a product originating from that entity (ie: a used Honda Civic). What trademark should prevent is me from selling a a non-Canon printer while advertising it as a Canon printer. Trademark is (or at least should be) to protect consumers from being mislead, not to protect companies from talking about them and re-selling and re-advertising their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, Egyptologists would rightly have reason to complain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about bias!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Being right often makes you biased toward being right, without considering all the possible wrong answers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are making the same stupid assumption that Mike makes, that there is a RIGHT and WRONG answer here. When the courts rule against Mike's wishes, they are WRONG. When they agree with him, they are RIGHT.
The problem is, in this case that may be RIGHT, even if they don't agree with Mike.
There is no absolute right answer here, so yeah, you missed the point entirely!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it makes you feel any better, instead of "right" we'll say, "consistent with the intent of the law" or "in alignment with the public benefits intended by the application of the law."
So, these federal judges appear to fail to understand the objectives and application of liability. Or are you suggesting that the application of liability should be on a case-by-case basis and not consistent with any common principles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either Google is infringing *or* they are not. This is not new case law and the precedent *clearly* points to not. The judge freaked out because he saw the name Google on the docket and saw his chance to tame the wild wild west of the internet.
Because the internet is different. Even when it is the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Appellate courts consist of panels of judges, not a single judge. Derp. Must be a conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Talk about bias!
Yep. Pirate Mike has the worst-known case of confirmation bias on the planet, but there is a certain beauty in working backwards like Pirate Mike: Whether or not the court got it "right" is determined by whether or not Mike likes the result, which in turn is determined by whether or not the result is good for rights holders. If the decision hurts rights holders, then it's "right," and vice versa.
You can play along at home! No actual analysis needed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The "Change Identity" button on Vidalia is going to get worn out if you don't stop pushing it so much dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Way to keep the debate tight, boys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Still, the point being made is that Mike's "analysis" about whether a court got it "right" is based solely on whether he likes the result, not what the law actually is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But you already knew that. You prefer to peacock and try to make yourself feel superior to everyone else, without actually demonstrating any grasp of the material.
BTW, its not working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed, as long as you're not claiming to represent the trademark holder when I'm really not the trademark holder. For instance, if I sell Nike shoes on Ebay (I hope Nike doesn't now sue me for using their word), I'm obviously not claiming to represent Nike even though I'm using the keyword Nike to sell my shoes. Because my shoes are Nike shoes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, if you just bet against them being right, you'll win 3 out of 4 times.
the court is a joke. that kind of track record in the real world (outside of govt) would get you fired in a week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money talks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money talks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Money talks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Law courts side with lawyers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Law courts side with lawyers?
This would absolutely comprise a violation of the Due Process Clause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Way to keep the debate tight, boys!
BTW do you recommend this program: https://sites.google.com/site/flipbuzzanswers/rosettastonetorrent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]