APPEAL NO. 10-2007
IN
THE
United States Court
of
Appeals
FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ROSETTA STONE LTD.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIAALEXANDRIA DIVISION
BRIEF OF APPELLANT -REDACTED
Clifford M. SloanMitchell
S.
EttingerJennifer L. SpazianoSKADDEN,ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER
&
FLOM
LLP1440
New
York Avenue
NW
.Washington,
DC
20005Phone Number: 202.371.7000Email: cliff.sloan@skadden.comCounsel for Appellant
Case: 10-2007 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 10/25/2010 Page: 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... iiJURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
FOR
REVIEW ..................................... 1STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. 3STATEMENT. OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 5A. The Rosetta Stone Marks ...................................................................... 5B. Google's AdWords Program ................................................................ 6C. Google's2004 Trademark Policy Change ........................................... 7
D.
..
.................................. 8E. Google's 2009 Trademark Policy Change ........................................... 9F. Google Actively Encourages Its Customers To
Bid On
Trademarks And To Use Trademarks In Sponsored Links ................ 10G. Google's Knowledge
Of
Its Trademark Infringement .......................
11
H. Google' s Conduct Has Caused Actual Confusion ............................. 12SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 14ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 17STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................... 17DISCUSSION OF ISSUES ...........................................................................
17
I.
The District Court Erroneously Found That Google's Use
Of
The Rosetta Stone Marks Does
Not
Create A Likelihood
Of
Confusion ............................................................................................ 17A. The District Court Failed To Address The Presumption
Of
Confusion Arising From Google's Use
Of
TheRosetta Stone Marks ................................................................. 19
1
Case: 10-2007 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 10/25/2010 Page: 2
B. The District Court Analyzed Only Three
Of
The NineFactors Relevant To The Likelihood
Of
ConfusionAnalysis ....................................................................................
21
C.
The District Court Departed From Summary JudgmentPrinciples In Considering The Three Disputed ConfusionFactors ...................................................................................... 26
1.
The District Court's Conclusion That The ActualConfusion Factor Favors Google Is ContradictedBy Record Evidence
Of
Actual Confusion .................... 26
a.
Rosetta Stone Presented The Testimony
Of
Five Consumers Who Were Confused ByGoogle's Sponsored Links And PurchasedCounterfeit Software As A Result ....................... 27
b.
Rosetta Stone Proffered An Expert Report. Concluding That
"A
Significant Portion
Of
Consumers In The Relevant Population AreLikely To Be Confused" ...................................... 32
c.
. ........................................................... 35
d.
2.
The District Court's Conclusion That GoogleLacked
An
Intent To Confuse Is Not Supported
By
..
... 36The Record ..................................................................... 373. The District Court's Conclusion Regarding TheSophistication
Of
The Consuming Public Is Belied
By
The Record Evidence ............................................... 40II. The Functionality Doctrine Has No Application To Google'sUse
Of
The Rosetta Stone Marks ....................................................... 42III. The District Court Erred In Granting Summary Judgment ToGoogle On The Secondary Trademark Infringement Claims ............ 46
11
Case: 10-2007 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 10/25/2010 Page: 3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Rosetta Stone 4th Cir Opening Brief
Rosetta Stone's opening brief in its appeal of Rosetta Stone v. Google to the Fourth Circuit. My prior blog post: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/08/google_gets_com.htm
2.4K
Reads
0
Readcasts
5
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
