|
''Rosetta Stone v. Google'', 676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The Court overturned a grant of summary judgment for Google that had held Google AdWords was not a violation of trademark law (see federal Lanham Act,(1)). Though other cases had addressed trademark infringement in the context of online keyword advertising (see Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.) ''Rosetta Stone v. Google'' is considered the last serious American challenge to Google's AdWord program. Though, Rosetta Stone 'won' an overturn of summary judgment, the subsequent settlement between the two parties left commentators declaring the Google has 'won' the keyword advertising trademark fight. ==Background== Google has used a version of keyword advertising, known as AdWords, since October 2000. Google places paid ads at the top and sides of its search results page as “sponsored links.” Every time someone enters a search, Google places the most relevant ads, as determined through relevance and bids on the word by advertisers. Most advertisers with Google pay on a cost per click basis. In 2004, Google changed its policy and began allowing advertisers to bid on trademarked words. In 2009, Google further changed its AdWord policy now allowing use of trademarks both in advertising text and as advertisement keywords. As a result of the policy change, more than twenty lawsuits were filed against Google alleging trademark infringement. In response to the changed AdWord policy, Rosetta Stone, the maker of popular foreign language learning software, filed suit against Google for violating the Lanham Act, claiming Google was "helping third parties to mislead consumers and misappropriate the Rosetta Stone Marks by using them as "keyword" triggers for paid advertisements and by using them within the text or title of paid advertisements". Rosetta Stone sued specifically for: direct trademark infringement, contributory trademark infringement, vicarious trademark infringement, and trademark dilution. Rosetta Stone also sued for unjust enrichment under Virginia state law. The district court granted Google’s motion for summary judgment on all Lanham Act claims finding there had been no consumer confusion, Google's use of the trademarked keywords was functional, and the use of the trademarked keywords was either nominative fair use or contributed to an increase in Rosetta Stone's brand recognition. The district court also granted Google's motion to dismiss Rosetta Stone's unjust enrichment claim. Rosetta Stone appealed to the Fourth Circuit on all claims, which reviewed the case de novo. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|