Trademarks and the World Wide Web IM 350
Trademarks and the World Wide Web IM 350: Intellectual Property Law and New Media Spring, 2015
What is a trademark? • Source identifier
How do we determine priority of trademark rights? • Use in commerce • First in time, first in right
What makes a trademark valuable? • Commands the attention of consumer • Easy to remember • Shorthand way to communicate
What interests does trademark law protect? • Trademark owners against free riders • The public interest – Prevention from “confusion”
What types of “confusion” exist • Product • Source • Sponsorship
How does the law categorize confusion? • Classic confusion • Reverse confusion • Initial interest confusion
Trademark issues on the Internet • Domain squatters – www. cocacola. com – Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act • Metatags – Is it possible to confuse a machine? • Ad. Words – Can Google sell my trademark as an Ad. Word? • Jurisdiction – Where can an infringer be sued?
Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc. , 676 F. 3 d 144, (4 th Cir. 2012) • RS markets language-learning software under “Rosetta Stone” • RS owns and uses several marks: – ROSETTA STONE, – ROSETTA STONE LANGUAGE LEARNING SUCCESS, – ROSETTASTONE. COM, and – ROSETTA WORLD • RS began advertising with Google in 2002
Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc. , 676 F. 3 d 144, (4 th Cir. 2012) • Google offers natural search results and sponsored links • Ad. Words – sponsors can purchase keywords to trigger appearance of sponsor’s ad • Sponsor’s pay Google on “cost-per-click” basis • The higher the ad, the higher the click rate.
Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc. , 676 F. 3 d 144, (4 th Cir. 2012) • Google permits use of TM in ads when sponsor: – is reseller of tm’d product – Makes or sells components for tm’d product – Offers compatible parts or goods for use with tm’d product – Provides information or reviews about tm’d product
Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc. , 676 F. 3 d 144, (4 th Cir. 2012) • RS says Google policy creates likelihood and actual confusion – Within 6 -month period, RS reports 190 instances to Google in which one of the sponsored links was marketing counterfeit RS products • RS sues Google for direct, contributory, and vicarious tm infringement, dilution and unjust enrichment
Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc. , 676 F. 3 d 144, (4 th Cir. 2012) • District Court grants summary judgment on all tm claims and dismisses unjust enrichment • Appellate Court reverses in part and finds issues of fact on: – Whether Google intended to cause confusion – Whethere was actual confusion – Functionality doctrine did not apply – Contributory infringement – Dilution
Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc. , 676 F. 3 d 144, (4 th Cir. 2012) • So what happened to the case after the appeal?
New Top Level Domain System • Old regime –. com, . net, . org – $30 • New regime –. Nike, . Apple. , bicycle – $185, 000
- Slides: 15