Slashdot Mirror
Rosetta Stone Sues Google For Trademark Violation
adeelarshad82 writes that earlier this week "Rosetta Stone, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Google Inc in a US federal court, alleging trademark infringement. In the lawsuit, the company alleged that Google is allowing third parties, including individuals involved in software piracy, to purchase the right to use its trademarks — or other 'confusingly similar' terms — in Google's Adwords advertising program."
... and didn't it fail?
There's no place like localhost
In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.
It would probably be more cost effective for Google to just buy Rosetta Stone and shut it down. Sales are obviously down - but at the prices they charge, that's hardly surprising.
Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
I work in internet advertising (one of the very numerous google adwords certified individuals and so on) and see problems from this nearly weekly.
Your competitor (or even a scam site) begins advertising when people search for your company? Not much you can do about it. They even reference to your company in ad description? Still not much you can do about it.
Technically you can apply for protections concerning your trademark but they only work for specific terms (ie: What you've trademarked. Any typos, product names you haven't specifically registered, slang words that people use about your product but aren't exactly the trademark, etc. can't be protected) and even then, if Google rejects the application, there is little you can do.
You can't even contact them. Google AdWords certified companies have a specific individual as their contact person for Google but for anyone not using services by one of us... They can mail Google and get a copypaste answer that doesn't help anything at all. Or they can go to google webmasters' area and make a thread about it (though that usually helps even less)...
So, yeah. The problem does exist.
for cents on the dollar.
In a quick google search, 80% of the ads were either put there by Rosetta Stone themselves, or an affiliate of the company. They are still buying all the ad words, they were probably just upset that their cost of advertising went up suddenly when other people wanted those same words. I don't blame them, I would be upset too. Of course that doesn't mean they should get their way......
I have no idea whether what they are doing is legal or not, and I'll bet there has never been a court case like this ever, nor is there a law that covers it directly.
Qxe4
Google is a bastardization of "Googol", a very large number. It entered the lexicon after the word's existence. See "kleenex", "band aid", etc.
Meanwhile, "Rosetta Stone" has been in the lexicon for centuries, and has been associated with translation since the term existed as the stone itself is a translation aid. Being able to trademark "Rosetta Stone" in the domain of translation is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard (it's even worse than getting the trademark on Windows for an operating system, since at least that was a partially novel usage of the term).
I think I'll trademark just "Stone" for a company that sells rocks, and sue the pants off of anyone attempting to use the word, including Rosetta Stone.
In other other news, Goths sue over confusion with 90's Liverpudlian jingly-guitar dancefloor doom merchants who frequently tickled the top end of the indie & dance charts.
http://www.myspace.com/undertherosettastone
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
So, Rosetta Stone Inc wants to sue Google for Trademark Violation. How about the British Museum, which holds the real Rosetta Stone, sues this upstart for using Rosetta Stone as it's trademark? Or the Egyptian government, which certainly has a better claim on the stone, which was looted by the Brits in the 1870's? Given all the confusion that already exists because this translation company has appropriated to itself the name Rosetta Stone, when there also exist the real Rosetta Stone, "The Rosetta Stone of immunology", "Arabidopsis, the Rosetta Stone of flowering time (fossils)", an algorithm for predicting protein structure from sequence is named Rosetta@home, and in molecular biology, a series of "Rosetta" bacterial cell lines have been developed that contain a number of TRNA genes that are rare in E. coli but common in other organisms, enabling the efficient translation of DNA from those organisms in E. coli. "Rosetta" is also an online language translation tool to help localisation of software, developed and maintained by Canonical as part of the Launchpad project, "Rosetta" is the name of a "lightweight dynamic translator" distributed for Mac OS X by Apple that enables applications compiled for a RISC processor (PowerPC) to run on Apple systems using a CISC (x86) processor. The Rosetta Project is a global collaboration of language specialists and native speakers to develop a contemporary version of the historic Rosetta Stone to last from 2000 to 12,000 AD. Its goal is a meaningful survey and near permanent archive of 1,500 languages. As well as being the name of the original Rosetta Stone, the term has come to mean something critical to decryption or translation. Rosetta Stone Inc should be ashamed of themselves...
For those who skimmed TFA:
Last month, Google changed its policy stating that "advertisers will be allowed to use trademark terms in their ad text even if they do not own that trademark or have explicit approval from the trademark owner to use it," Rosetta Stone said
The problem is NOT Google infringing upon the trademarks that Rosetta Stone holds. The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit. This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue. I'm confused though, as to why Google JUST now started to allow this. If it was a no-brainer back when Adwords started, wouldn't they have allowed it at that point? Sounds to me like Adwords revenue was down, and allowing the use of non-approved trademarks in ads made the Adsword space that much more appealing in hopes of getting people off the fence when evaluating their advertising budget.
In Norway someone trademarked the name "Ida" and a drawing of the now famous fossil. They sell suitcases. The problem with this is that the museum that's is in possession of the fossil can't market it self using the name and picture of the thing...
That's just not right...
If Coke puts a commerical out saying 'Pepsi is horrible, drink Coke'
Pepsi doesn't/can't sue Coke for using its trademark... It's that simple, how do these guys think they have a case
It's sort of ironic that of all the people complaining the one here is the Rosetta Stone inc.
it's ironic on several levels. first, they are pilfering their very name from the public domain. (now they think the concept can apply to no others?) Second, it's a very very commonly used name. I know of many many companies using it, many of them in the same domain of study (e.g. biotech).
but perhaps most of all is that original Rosetta Stone itself's place in history was inference process of transitive association: "this well known thing, is the same as this lesser known thing". which is exactly what google is selling. you search for one thing and it, esepcially ad sense, returns other related things that might be substitutable but with a different origin and previously unknown to you.
they should reflect on why they called themselves rosetta stone.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If they want to say "if you're looking for home equipment, why not come to Bill's Home Equipment Store rather than to Home Depot?" there is no problem.
You can use trademark names to compare yourself against and use trademark names to explain what you do.
You'd think companies would be smarter than this, because apart from all the needless and costly litigation, it makes your product totally unsearchable. When I entered it in Google before Google decided to skew their search results (a dubious practice) it just turned up metallurgy pages. Safari yields pages about African tourism, Opera pages about classical music, and so on. Why would you as a company give yourself such a handicap?
The French looted the Rosetta Stone from the wall of a fort in Egypt while trying to strengthen the place.
The whinging Poms nicked it while the cheese-eating surrender monkeys were trying to smuggle it out and decided to keep it safe in the one place the Frenchies didn't have access to. Old Blighty.
The Egyptians have since rebuilt the wall with stones looted from a temple near Karnak.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
Google is a bastardization of "Googol", a very large number. It entered the lexicon after the word's existence.
"Googol" in turn appears to a bastardization of Google
Being able to trademark "Rosetta Stone" in the domain of translation is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard
Even worse: trying to secure trade dress protection for game rules that are common in computer puzzle games. In a lawsuit, The Tetris Company names nine elements that, when taken together, are distinctive to Tetris. But all but one (pieces made up of four unit squares connected on their sides) are also present in Dr. Mario, and several are present in Puyo Pop, Pac-Attack, and numerous other falling block games.
I think I'll trademark just "Stone" for a company that sells rocks
Or how about "Staples" for a retail store that sells office supplies such as stapler refills?
I wonder if Rosetta Stone will sue the British Museum for blatantly displaying and advertising that they are in possession of the Rosetta Stone.
Unless a trademark is famous enough for dilution protection (e.g. Coca-Cola, McDonald's golden arches, Nike's swoosh), trademark infringement usually requires that the goods or services be in the same field. Rosetta Stone software and Rosetta Stone archaeological artifacts are not.
Get back to us when they do that. With a specific example that we can all try.
You might want to look up "redirect" in a dictionary, just in case you're using it with an entirely different meaning to every educated English speaker on the planet.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
and start making your product better and cheaper.
That's easy. Just outsource to China.
Deleted
I remember my supervisor saying a few months ago that a competitor had bought google ads using our companies trademark as a keyword, and google then quickly removed them at our request. I wonder if the meat of the suit is the "confusingly similar", or ads that say "just like Rosetta Stone"?
The solution is to stop trying to find a way to keep your customers from learning about competitors and start making your product better and cheaper.
No. We are talking about scam sites. Rosetta is complaining about illegal sites selling their product illegally being capable of advertising through google's services.
I can go to an online shop selling Nike shoes. If they have google Ads, there is a high chance Ads of fake Nike sellers will appear. If I am Nike, I am competing with criminals. If I am a shopper, I may get conned into buying fake merchandise.
This is not a free market issue.
So true!
This is not illegal in any way.
If you spot someone who IS using your trademarks in deceptive ways, then report them to Google and they will remove it if it falls under infringement.
This is like all those PC Vs Mac ads, or any others that fall under the same category.
Also, i suggest everyone print-screen the above post and e-mail it to the idiots over at RS Inc.
You know, i was actually thinking of buying Rosetta Stone for learning Japanese and Russian, but fuck them, they just lost all my respect. I will take my monies elsewhere now. Might take a little longer, but i have all the time in the world.
Well, what does that have to do with software???
Now someone looking for information about the Rosetta Stone in the museum may *actually* have been looking for translation software.
So Google will show, along with the museum and info about the REAL Rosetta Stone, they will show language software. Including Rosetta Stone Inc and anyone else who wants to associate themselves with the term "Rosetta Stone" even when they have nothing to do with the British Museum.
I work for a car dealership owned by a parent company of many dozens of dealers and this was brought up several years ago, local competitors buying adspace with keywords "John Doe Dodge" and whatever that were the names of our stores. Someone up top actually had in a presentation "Sue the pants off of them!!" - just like I thought, it didn't work and they got nowhere expect in wasted legal fees.
This is a bad analogy as Google does not alter their search results for advertisers. The ads are displayed *beside* or *above* the results, and are clearly marked.
A better analogy would be if LG paid Best Busy so that whenever someone came in and asked about a Sony TV, Best buy had to also tell them "also, just FYI, we have this LG model".
I don't see anything wrong with that whatsoever.
Seriously, let everyone sue everyone else, so progress can occur and we can all come to a complete standstill. Perhaps then we can rid ourselves of this nonsense once and for all.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I agree, but most of the world doesn't have it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The actual complain text can be found here. It is surprisingly free of legalease and you can skim over it fairly quick.
PS: I love the fact that this story shows a big Rosetta Stone ad being served by google!
Step 1: Trademark a common term
Step 2: Sue google
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit!
I am going to trademark Red Herring Inc, then sue anyone who references, links to, or otherwise seeks to benefit or profit from either the term Red Herring or the concept.
The Rosetta Stone existed long before Rosetta Stone Inc.
stone as name, which is the name of one of the biggest discoveries of mankind, which has happed 200 years ago, and is now suing other people with it.
this doesnt classify even as prior art. its plain fucktardiness.
Read radical news here
Google should buy the British Museum (home of the real Rosetta Stone) and sue them back.
Off topic, but Rosetta Stones advertising is VERY abusive and misleading.
It strikes me that Google is doing an end run around trademark law.
What they are doing in fact, is allowing a company to associate a trademark which they do not have the rights to, with their own competing product.
Under trademark law, you cannot primarily describe your product using a trademarked name unless you own the trademark. Yes you can say it's "like" the trademarked version, and yes you can have your product listed near the trademarked one. What you can't do is buy the trademarked term for use in advertising your own competing product. this is the fundamental point of a trademark. Otherwise you can have a big H1 header saying Microsoft® with some tiny small print at the bottom saying "no, not really". Google is selling other peoples trademarks for use by competing companies. This is what's wrong. It doesn't matter what the end user sees, or whether the competing ad then goes on to claim that it is the genuine trademarked article. Google is selling a trademarked term to competitors. It does not have the right to do that. Imagine if your local newspaper allowed your competitors to use your name to direct people to their contact details.
Google are breaking trademark law. They do not own the trademarks concerned, they have no right to sell them to others.
Let me make my point clear - sure, a competitor can place an ad containing someone elses trademark, google can even search for and display ads using that trademark as a search term, but they cannot actively sell that trademark for a competitors use, because they don't have the legal right. The only way a trademark should be used in adwords, is by the trademark holder, and google should not be able to charge for that.
Imagine calling directory enquiries and asking for the number for DuPont, and being given the number for a rival. The rival can use the name in advertising as a comparison, they cannot buy the right to use the name to direct people to them. If I search for Rosetta Stone language course, Rosetta Stone should be at the head of the list, competitors who use Rosetta Stone in their blurb would be listed further down the page, and only because their text contained the searched for terms, not because they paid for the rights to the term "Rosetta Stone", which neither they nor Google have any legal right to.
I see you are completely missing the point of trademarks. That is the point: prevent people from abusing YOUR name and reputation. It is there to prevent other people's undesider association with you: both positive and negative. There should be limits to trademark protection, of course (for example everyone who's not in the same business, e.g. newspapers, bloggers, etc, should be allowed to say anything they want about a product) but this is crossing the line - people are directly associating and advertising a competing product to your product.
That is: I don't want my competitor to attack me directly, possibly with lies, because that's unfair.
Now, whether or not it's Google's problem, that's another thing. They should probably get closer in touch with the community. I waited a few months (!) for my Adsense application approval, and even when I asked question about it, it took a few weeks for a Googler to respond.
Google is not selling anybody trademarks.
Nobody can, after paying Goolge some money, use those trademarks to advertise their products and services.
Google is selling ads, and they are facilitating the ad placement by telling you which information will exist in the same page.
That is not trademark violation by any sane definition....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
When is Andrew Elditch going to sue Rosetta Stone for stealing his sound?
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Google has created an entirely new piece of virtual real estate in terms on on-line ads, and now Rosetta Stone (how can they even own that term?) claims that they own land on it. I think RS is full of crap and if they wanted to use the term there then they should have bought it. I hope that the courts slap them down HARD.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Seems like RS is just looking for a scape goat as their income falls. What next? They gonna sue Google for global warming? They just need to keep it in their pants.
Quindi, la mia ragazza brutta molto sottile. Volete masticare sul mio grosso grasso salame?
There! That should be more karma-lowering trollworthy dictum.
.
- aqk
F U