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.
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
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... ...So, yeah. The problem does exist.
I can see why this is a problem for you, but not why it is a problem for society in general. I mean, it's a problem for me, when competitors offer to do the same job better and for less, but that doesn't mean there should be a legal method for me to stifle competition. Your competitors have the right to advertise competing products to people and they have the right to reference your products by name. It's freedom of speech and it makes for more competitive markets. 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.
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...
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 by "use to their benefit" you mean reach potential customers, then yes.
until it is illegal to suggest alternatives or present your product as an alternative this lawsuit is baseless
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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.
How is that obvious infringement? These are trademarks, not copyrights. If the public is not being confused into thinking a product is actually made by a different company, there is no justification for trademark infringement. If Crest pays to show ads when I do a search for Colgate, that's a good thing. And no, I don't think anyone is being tricked into thinking Crest is made by the same company as Colgate.
These overly litigious barrators should be slapped down by the courts. Make your products better and cheaper. Stop trying to prevent customers from seeing ads from competitors and crapping on free speech to do it.
But do competitors have the right to profit using your own trademark?
Yes! They absolutely do. I can tell you Microsoft sucks go with RedHat and thereby profit by making a commission while using the trademark "Microsoft". So long as I'm not confusing anyone into thinking RedHat is made by Microsoft, MS should have no ability to use the courts to limit my free speech.
It's that they are using the name recognition of the Rosetta Software to peddle their own product.
So? Do they have some inherent right to control and stop any and all free speech with regard to their trademarks? Google Docs is like MS Office but free and in a Web page. You should pay me money to implement it at your company. There I just used MS's trademarked term again using their brand recognition to profit using a competitor. Are you telling me that should be illegal? What justification is there for suppressing my free speech in such a case? I don't see it at all.
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.
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
This is a bit more as though Pepsi redesigned its packaging to look a bit like Coke's, then started a series of commercials showing that packaging and claiming it's Coke, to trick Coca-Cola fans into buying it. But even that analogy isn't quite on the spot: It's more as though Pepsi registered Coka-Cola.com, and Google suggested and sold ads linking to it when folks search for "Coke" or "Coca-Cola", with a line like "Enjoy delicious Coke here!"
If Google restricted trademarks in their ads to clear comparatives, like the FTC mandates in all advertising media, there would be no problem. From here, it looks like they are indeed encouraging flagrant trademark violations, in clear violation of FTC rules. Similar suits in other media have been successful, and some of the penalties are statutory. I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess these guys and the seven other similar pending suits have viable cases.
So? A trademarks doesn't give the holder any control over a word. I can say "Linux is better than Windows", and there's nothing MS can do about it. I can even bid on "Windows" as a search term, and say "Looking for Windows? Get Linux, it's better."
Trademark is intended solely to stop one company from representing its products as being another company's products. If a company doesn't pretend they're SELLING Rosetta Stone products, there should be no problem referencing their competitor... and that's GOOD.
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.
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.
The problem isn't competitors. The problem is fraud.
Then have you sued the people committing the fraud? Are you alleging Google is committing a trademark violation by running ads from other companies? The courts have already decided on that one for all other mediums. Go after the company placing the ad. You can even subpoena the records of who they are from Google.
We occasionally see ads on Google that are specifically designed to look like they are from us, using our exact name.
So what, I see people trying to run all sorts of scams over the internet. I don't sue the company hosting their page. I don't sue craigslist if someone tries to use their service to commit a crime. You sue the criminal, not the company being used just because they happen to have more money.
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.