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."
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
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.
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.
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.
So can you go to any newspaper and advertise your con business freely? Just try and see what happens.
Yes, you can. Do you really think that the newspapers employ an army of lawyers to exhaustively vet submitted ads for trademark violation or other criminal activity? Unless it really obviously sticks out, your ad will be published with no questions asked.
The papers will just rely on trademark law, in the same manner that Google does, to hand the legal obligation off to the advertiser. They may also decide to clarify that point via their terms & conditions.
Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
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.