Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
INTA Amicus Brief in Rosetta Stone v Google

INTA Amicus Brief in Rosetta Stone v Google

Ratings: (0)|Views: 469 |Likes:
Published by Eric Goldman

More info:

Published by: Eric Goldman on Nov 02, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/05/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
RECORD NUMBER: 10-2007
United States Court of Appeals
 for the
Fourth Circuit
ROSETTA STONE LTD.,
 
 Plaintiff-Appellant,
– v. –
GOOGLE, INCORPORATED,
 
 Defendant-Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA AT ALEXANDRIA
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
DAVID H. BERNSTEIND
EBEVOISE
&
 
P
LIMPTON
LLP919 Third AvenueNew York, NY 10022(212) 909-6696
Counsel of Record 
KURT E. ANDERSONG
IORDANO
,
 
H
ALLERAN
&
 
C
IESLA
,
 
P.C.125 Half Mile Road, Ste. 300Red Bank, NJ 07701(732) 741-3900A. JUSTIN OURSO, IIIJ
ONES
,
 
W
ALKER
,
 
W
AECHTER
,P
OITEVENT
,
 
C
ARRERE
&
 
D
ENEGRE
L.L.P8555 United Plaza BoulevardBaton Rouge, LA 70809(225) 248-2022
Counsel for Amicus Curiae, International Trademark Association
 
COUNSEL PRESS
VA – (800) 275-0668
 
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, amicus curiae International
Trademark Association (“INTA”) states that it is not a publicly
-held corporation or other publicly-held entity. INTA does not have any parent corporation and no publicly-held corporation or other publicly-held entity holds 10% or more of 
INTA’s stock.
 
 
PageTABLE OF CONTENTSCORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENTTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iiiINTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE .................................. 2SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 5I.THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHENIT APPLIED THE FUNCTIONALITY DOCTRINE ..................................... 8A.Summary of District Court’s Errors Regarding Functionality .............. 8B.The District Court Erred in Relying on the FunctionalityDoctrine To Address Google’s Alleged Functional Use of Rosetta Stone’s Marks ......................................................................... 11C.On Remand, the District Court Should Consider Whether theNominative Fair Use Doctrine Applies to Google’s Use of Rosetta Stone’s Marks as Keywords ................................................... 14II.THE DISTRICT COURT ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED THETRADEMARK DILUTION REVISION ACT ............................................. 17A.Summary of the District Court’s Errors Regarding Dilution. ............. 17B.The District Court Erred When It Required Proof That GoogleUses the ROSETTA STONE Marks On Google’s Goods OrServices................................................................................................ 18C.The District Court Erred In Ruling that the Increasing Fame of the ROSETTA STONE Mark Barred a Claim For Dilution ............... 231. 
Fame is a prerequisite for protection under the TDRA.
........... 24

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->