Feeds

Appeals court cracks open Google AdWords v Rosetta Stone case

Second look at whether keyword ad policy infringed trademark rights

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

Even 'well-educated' consumers confused by keyword links

"The evidence also includes an internal Google study reflecting that even well-educated, seasoned internet consumers are confused by the nature of Google’s sponsored links and are sometimes even unaware that sponsored links are, in actuality, advertisements. At the summary judgment stage, we cannot say on this record that the consumer sophistication factor favors Google as a matter of law. There is enough evidence, if viewed in a light most favorable to Rosetta Stone, to find that this factor suggests a likelihood of confusion," the court said.

The district court had ruled that even if there was a "genuine issue of fact" over likelihood of confusion Google could not be found liable for that infringement. That was because it said Rosetta Stone was prohibited from claiming protection for the functional features of Google's keywords 'Rosetta Stone'.

However, the Court of Appeals ruled that the 'functionality doctrine' - which the district court had said applied and that prohibits trade mark rights from extending to the functional features of a product or its packaging – "simply does not apply in these circumstances".

"Rosetta Stone uses its registered mark as a classic source identifier in connection with its language learning products," the Court said. "Clearly, there is nothing functional about Rosetta Stone’s use of its own mark; use of the words 'Rosetta Stone' is not essential for the functioning of its language-learning products, which would operate no differently if Rosetta Stone had branded its product 'Sphinx' instead of 'Rosetta Stone'."

"Once it is determined that the product feature – the word mark 'Rosetta Stone' in this case – is not functional, then the functionality doctrine has no application, and it is irrelevant whether Google’s computer program functions better by use of Rosetta Stone’s nonfunctional mark. As the case progresses on remand, Google may well be able to establish that its use of Rosetta Stone’s marks in its AdWords program is not an infringing use of such marks; however, Google will not be able to do so based on the functionality doctrine," it said.

The district court had determined that Rosetta Stone had failed to show that Google was liable for contributory infringement. This was because the company did not "establish with the requisite specificity that Google knew or should have known of the infringing activity".

Case law in the US has shown that in order to qualify as a contributory trade mark infringer parties must be shown to have had knowledge or reason to know that infringement was taking place and to have intentionally induced customers to use the mark in an infringing fashion or have supplied its products to identified individuals known to be engaging in continuing infringement. There must also be underlying direct infringement.

The Court of Appeals rejected the district court's dismissal of the contributory infringement claim in summary judgment and said there was sufficient evidence of such infringement "to permit a trier of fact".

"We conclude that the evidence recited by the district court is sufficient to establish a question of fact as to whether Google continued to supply its services to known infringers," it said.

Rosetta Stone has also alleged that Google has caused a dilution of its trade mark.

Under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) Rosetta Stone must show that it owns a distinctive famous mark and that Google has used a similar mark "in commerce" that in a way that "gives rise to an association between the marks" and that that association is "likely to impair the distinctiveness of the famous mark or likely to harm the reputation of the famous mark".

The district court dismissed Rosetta Stone's claims, but the Court of Appeals ruled that it was wrong to do so. The district court had said there was a lack of evidence to show that Google had used Rosetta Stone's trade marks "to identify its own goods and services" and that in any case Google had a 'fair use' defence.

Under the FTDA "any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services is not actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment," according to the Court of Appeals ruling.

The court said it was up to Google to show that it had used Rosetta Stone's mark in good faith "to describe its product and otherwise than as a trademark". Good faith would be determined on the basis of whether Google "intended to create consumer confusion as to source or sponsorship" in how it used the mark. Google would also have to show that it had only used the mark in a limited fashion which was "necessary to identify the product or service" and had not done anything to suggest "affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement" by Rosetta Stone.

The district court had also said that Rosetta Stone had failed to show that Google's use of its marks were "likely to impair the distinctiveness of the famous mark or likely to harm the reputation of the famous mark". However, the Appeals Court said that the district court's "truncated analysis" of the issue was not sufficient to dismiss the claim.

The Court of Appeals upheld the district court's summary judgment award in favour of Google in respect of the vicarious infringement claims brought by Rosetta Stone. This was because there was no evidence that Google acts in cahoots with adverts to "control the counterfeit 'Rosetta Stone' products," it said.

Google did not unjustly enrich itself at the expense of Rosetta Stone, the Court of Appeals ruled. The district court was therefore right to dismiss this claim in summary judgment.

"According to Rosetta Stone, the keyword trigger auctions constitute the unauthorized sale of the 'Rosetta Stone' marks," it said. "Rosetta Stone alleges that through the auctions it conferred a benefit 'involuntarily' on Google, and that Google 'is knowingly using the goodwill established in [the] trademarks to derive ... revenues.' Rosetta Stone, however, has not alleged facts supporting its general assertion that Google 'should reasonably have expected' to pay for the use of marks in its keyword query process."

"Indeed, Rosetta Stone does not contend, and did not allege, that Google pays any other mark holder for the right to use a mark in its AdWords program. In our view, these allegations are insufficient to surmount even the minimal barrier presented by a motion to dismiss," the Court ruled.

The district court will now re-examine in more detail at a full trial whether Google is liable for direct and contributory trade mark infringement and whether it is also liable for diluting Rosetta Stone's mark.

"While this is an interesting decision it must be viewed in the context of the standards of proof required for obtaining summary judgment rather than the standard that applies in full proceedings," Iain Connor, expert in intellectual property law at Pinsent Masons, said.

Copyright © 2012, Out-Law.com

Out-Law.com is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

More from The Register

next story
Facebook pays INFINITELY MORE UK corp tax than in 2012
Thanks for the £3k, Zuck. Doh! you're IN CREDIT. Guess not
DOUBLE BONK: Testy fanbois catch Apple Pay picking pockets
Users wail as tapcash transactions are duplicated
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
Google Glassholes are UNDATEABLE – HP exec
You need an emotional connection, says touchy-feely MD... We can do that
YARR! Pirates walk the plank: DMCA magnets sink in Google results
Spaffing copyrighted stuff over the web? No search ranking for you
In the next four weeks, 100 people will decide the future of the web
While America tucks into Thanksgiving turkey, the world will be taking over the net
prev story

Whitepapers

Why cloud backup?
Combining the latest advancements in disk-based backup with secure, integrated, cloud technologies offer organizations fast and assured recovery of their critical enterprise data.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
New hybrid storage solutions
Tackling data challenges through emerging hybrid storage solutions that enable optimum database performance whilst managing costs and increasingly large data stores.