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.
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
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...
Yeah, I wonder if Rosetta Stone will sue the British Museum for blatantly displaying and advertising that they are in possession of the Rosetta Stone.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
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.
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.
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.
If I walk into a store and ask the clerk, "where's the Rosetta Stone software" the shelf he will direct me to has the competing software RIGHT NEXT to it, perhaps with stickers bragging how much better it is than Rosetta.
Trying to get your software to show up when somebody googles a competitor is the same thing.
And if you think it is different because they are paying Google for it, the same thing happens in stores(pay-for-placement on shelves) and in newspaper ads. Every magazine I've dealt(admittedly only a dozen or so) with let me buy an ad on the facing page from a competitor's ad, some would even call me up pro-actively if I'd bought space from them before.
It runs on Mac but don't expect to really learn a language with this. I've gone through all levels in Rosetta Stone (French). It doesn't go beyond the very basic level. Does introduce you to the proper accent.
I actually learned French from Ollendorff's book published in 1851! Amazing why his method which is so effective isn't followed in any other language books that I've seen. I think he also has a book on Spanish. Check it out on Google books and a hard copy is also available on Amazon.
It's not just competitors, it's also pirate sites. If you're an internet newbie and you google "Rosetta Stone" and the first link is "Download Rosetta Stone cheap, only $6.95" but the second link is legitimate, you would most likely hit the first link - it's cheaper, it's right up there on Google and it's in the sponsored links, so it has to be reputable, and you have now become an unwitting customer to commercial software pirates.
From experience I'll tell you that Rosetta Stone isn't very good. The principle of learning by induction by seeing captioned pictures and repeating voiced words is a poor one. They say it's how a child learns their first language, but:
1) Children take YEARS to reach any reasonable standard in their first language.
2) Children learn the mistakes in their grammar by free interaction with their parents and others. Where mistakes will be verbally corrected, and questions of confusion can be asked and answered.
3) Children have a far greater supply of stimulus in their immersive environment, not just multi-choice pictures.
I found learning with RS to be extremely slow. And when you start wondering about the rules of grammar in different tenses or whatever, the software has no way of spelling out the rule for you. It seems to be a case of taking weeks to learn to talk like a baby.
I've also tried Pimsleur, which is a CD course, and it's better than Rosetta stone - judged on the basis of learning more of the language quicker.
But the best of the three by a large margin was Michel Thomas's 8 CD language course. This gives a good basis of the language in a few days.
Michel Thomas is also several times cheaper than Rosetta Stone.
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.