No. 10-2007
IN THEUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR 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 Virginia, Alexandria Division
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGEAND ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATIONIN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE GOOGLE, INC.
Harold Feld
Attorney for Amici Curiae
John Bergmayer Rashmi RangnathP
UBLIC
K
NOWLEDGE
1818 N St. NW, Suite 410Washington, DC 20036(202) 861-0020Corynne McSherryE
LECTRONIC
F
RONTIER
F
OUNDATION
454 Shotwell St.San Francisco, CA 94110(415) 436 9333December 6, 2010
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Disclosure..........................................................................................................................iiiTable of Authorities.........................................................................................................ivStatement of the Interest of Amici Curiae.....................................................................viArgument...........................................................................................................................1I.
Google Did Not Make Trademark Use of Rosetta Stone’s Marks....................1
A. Trademark Use is a Narrower Concept than “Use in Commerce”...................2B. Rosetta Stone’s Argument is Incompatible With Persuasive Precedent...........4C. Cases Which Suggest That Keyword Advertising Platforms Can DirectlyInfringe Trademarks are Unpersuasive.............................................................7
II.
Google’s Uses of Rosetta Stone’s Marks, As Well As the Uses of Most of ItsCustomers, Are Fair...........................................................................................13
A. Fair Use is Essential to Protect the Free Flow of Information........................14B. Google Makes Fair Use of Rosetta Stone’s Marks.........................................17C. Google Is Not Secondarily Liable...................................................................191) Google’s Typical Customers Make Fair Use of Rosetta Stone’s Marks....202) Fair Use of Rosetta Stone’s Marks Promotes Consumer Welfare.............21
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................24Service .............................................................................................................................26
iii
DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1,
amici
state that theyhave no parent companies, nor do any publicly held companies own ten percent or more of their stock.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Public Knowledge/EFF Amicus Brief in Rosetta Stone v Google
1.5K
Reads
2
Readcasts
3
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
