Quantcast

Google Gets Favorable Ruling In Rosetta Stone Case

Rosetta Stone loses case against Google

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
[ Search]

A lawsuit filed by language software firm Rosetta Stone against Google for copyright infringement has been dismissed by a federal judge.

In its lawsuit, filed in July 2009, Rosetta Stone alleged that Google allowed third parties including individuals involved in software piracy to purchase the right to use Rosetta Stone trademarks or other terms confusingly similar in Google’s Adwords advertising program.

Google said the ruling was "consistent with a growing line of decisions" about the Internet.

"Users searching on Google benefit from being able to choose from a variety of competing advertisers, and we’ve found no evidence that legitimate use of trademarks as keyword triggers or in the text of advertisements confuses consumers. We’re pleased that the judge has ruled in Google’s favor, consistent with a growing line of decisions in the Internet space," Google said in a statement.

Tom-Adams-Rosetta-Stone Rosetta Stone expressed its disappointment about the ruling, charging that Google does not do enough to stop such practices on its AdWords platform.

"We are deeply disappointed that Rosetta Stone was not given an opportunity to present at a public trial the facts underlying Google’s practices and the motivation that led Google to adopt its current trademark policies," stated Tom Adams, President and CEO of Rosetta Stone Inc.

"Google has a corporate responsibility to protect consumers and promote trust in its search results. Without question, Google knows that counterfeit software is being advertised in its Adwords program and takes no effective steps to stop this illicit activity."

Rosetta Stone said it plans to review the decision and will consider an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
 

Google Gets Favorable Ruling In Rosetta Stone Case
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://www.invernessonlineforum.com Guest

    > The Digital Economy Act was rammed through Parliament as the election was called. Over 20,000 people contacted their MP to complain, adverts were paid for by donations, and thousands of people watched the debate live from Westminster.
    >
    > I was appalled by this process. It seemed to me undemocratic and dangerous. Now, new powers have been granted without really understanding the consequences.
    >
    > I do not think that disconnection

  • http://www.mcobject.com Steve

    It is a shame that the courts fail to protect trademark holders. Why should my competitors be able to trade on the good name and reputation of my trademarked product identity, which I’ve invested years and untold dollars to establish? People that use my product’s name as a search term are specifically looking for my product – it cannot be mistaken for a term (like Kleenex) that has become an everyday substitute for “facial tissue”.

    Google’s “do no evil” slogan is a joke.

    I wonder, if I created an Adword on google.com for the search term “google”, and used it to solicit supposedly superior and/or cheaper ads on Bing, would Google allow it? Or would they get all indignant about the use of their trademarked term being used to advertise a competitor and terminate the account or otherwise stop the ad?

  • Richard

    If I place an ad in my local newspaper saying I’m a dealer for, say, Dell Computers, is the newspaper required to drive out to my place of business to make sure I have some Dell Computers for sale? Of course not. Why would it be any different for Google, or Craig’s List, or anyone else?

    The trademark infringement has been committed by the person placing the ad, not by Google. Google may be liable if they continue to sell fraudulant ads to the same buyer after being notified of the fraud, but they could hardly be considered liable just because we know there are some number of unidentified dishonest people out there.

    If I infringe on Dell’s trademark, I am the one who did something wrong, and I am the one who is liable. Rosetta is asking Google to defend its trademark, but it’s not Google’s job to defend Rosetta’s trademark or anyone else’s. It IS Google’s job to defend it’s own trademark, which is why they would indeed take action if you try to represent yourself as Google in a Google Adword.

    Just ask yourself how Google could possibly check on the legitimacy of everyone placing a Google ad? It would be an impossible task. If Rosetta feels its trademark has been infringed, they should hire a lawyer and file suit against the person to committed the infringement. If they subpoena Google for the identity of an Adword buyer, I’m sure Google would be happy to comply.

  • DianaPerkins

    I was considering suing Rosetta Stone for stealing (and using same languaging in ads) the teaching method that my father conceived back in the 1960′s. He wrote and illustrated his English training books, based on the ‘Visual Method’…well back then it was books and illustrations, not CDs and photographs! The company was successful and seems Rosetta Stone capitalized on that idea without getting permission. I don’t know how to pur’sue’ this so if anyone knows of a way to get SOME credit for licensing let me know!! After reading this I am more compelled to do so….

  • Sue Google

    By Sue Google (WPN reader) – Fri, 04/16/2010 – 14:59
    GOOGLE IS ABUSIVE
    Yahoo is most relevant and professional now joined with Bing as of 2010. Google allows old dead links, slander postings, invasion of privacy, fake Ad Words accounts and cyber stalking that shows for years. Just try any search engine and type in “GOOGLE-YOUTUBE BEING SUED” and you will see hundreds of results with people winning. Why does Google allow this and no other search engine does? Google employees are under suspicion of CYBER STALKING customers that email valid complaints. BOYCOTT Google pay products and only use their free products.
    Sincerely,
    Sue Google