Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10-2007
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Harold Feld
Attorney for Amici Curiae
John Bergmayer
Rashmi Rangnath Corynne McSherry
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 454 Shotwell St.
Washington, DC 20036 San Francisco, CA 94110
(202) 861-0020 (415) 436 9333
December 6, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Disclosure.......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Authorities ......................................................................................................... iv
Statement of the Interest of Amici Curiae..................................................................... vi
Argument ........................................................................................................................... 1
I. Google Did Not Make Trademark Use of Rosetta Stone’s Marks .................... 1
A. Trademark Use is a Narrower Concept than “Use in Commerce” ................... 2
B. Rosetta Stone’s Argument is Incompatible With Persuasive Precedent........... 4
C. Cases Which Suggest That Keyword Advertising Platforms Can Directly
Infringe Trademarks are Unpersuasive............................................................. 7
II. Google’s Uses of Rosetta Stone’s Marks, As Well As the Uses of Most of Its
Customers, Are Fair ........................................................................................... 13
A. Fair Use is Essential to Protect the Free Flow of Information........................ 14
B. Google Makes Fair Use of Rosetta Stone’s Marks......................................... 17
C. Google Is Not Secondarily Liable................................................................... 19
1) Google’s Typical Customers Make Fair Use of Rosetta Stone’s Marks.... 20
2) Fair Use of Rosetta Stone’s Marks Promotes Consumer Welfare ............. 21
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 24
Service ............................................................................................................................. 26
ii
DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, amici state that they
have no parent companies, nor do any publicly held companies own ten percent or
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES!
August Storck K.G. v. Nabisco, 59 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 1995) -----------------------------------------------------20
Century 21 Real Estate v. LendingTree, 425 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2005) ------------------------------------- 10, 20
Government Employees Insurance Company v. Google, 330 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Va. 2004) -- 3, 8, 9, 18
Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) ---------------------------------------------------------- 5
Homeowners Group v. Home Marketing Specialists, 931 F.2d 1100 (6th Cir. 1991) ------------------------- 5
Inwood Labs v. Ives Labs, 456 U.S. 844 (1982) -------------------------------------------------------------- 11, 19
Lockheed Martin v. Network Solutions, 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999)-------------------------------------- 6, 12
Maurag v. Bertuglia, 494 F. Supp. 2d. 395 (E.D. Va. 2007) -----------------------------------------------------21
Merck & Co. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, 425 F. Supp. 2d 402 (S.D. NY 2006)-------------------------18
Nagler v. Garcia, 370 Fed. App’x 678 (6th Cir. 2010) ------------------------------------------------------------- 5
Nat. Fed’n of the Blind v. Loompanics Enters., 936 F. Supp. 1232 (D. Md. 1996) ---------------------- 16, 21
New Kids on the Block v. News America Pub., 745 F. Supp. 1540 (C.D. Cal. 1990) ------------------ 2, 6, 10
New Kids on the Block v. News America Pub., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) --------------------------- passim
Nova Wines v. Adler Fels Winery, 467 F. Supp. 2d 965 (N.D. Cal. 2006 --------------------------------------- 5
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F. 3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001)------------------- 8, 12
Playboy Enterprises v. Netscape Communications, 354 F. 3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004) ------------------11
Playboy Enterprises v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002) ----------------------------------------------- 22, 23
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum v. Gentile Productions, 134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 1998) ----------- 5
iv
Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)------------------------------------------------------------------15
Tiffany (NJ) v. eBay, 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) ------------------------------------------------------------- 18, 19
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. v. Tabari, 610 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010) ------------------------------------- 16, 20
U-Haul Int’l. v. WhenU.com, 279 F. Supp. 2d 723 (E.D. Va. 2003) --------------------------------------------- 6
Universal Commc’n Sys. v. Lycos, 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007) ------------------------------------------------16
Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, 581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ------------------------------------------ 5, 10
Volkswagen AG v. Dorling Kindersley Pub, 614 F. Supp. 2d 793 (E.D. Mich. 2009)------------------------- 5
WCVB-TV v. Boston Athletic Association, 926 F.2d 42 (1st Cir. 1991) ----------------------------------------23
Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, 293 F. Supp. 2d 734 (E.D. Mich. 2003) ----------------------------------- 6
STATUTES!
17 U.S.C. § 107---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
OTHER AUTHORITIES!
Stacey L. Dogan & Mark A. Lemley, Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet, 41 HOUS.
v
STATEMENT OF THE INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
digital culture. An essential part of PK’s mission is to make sure that restrictive
innovation and free expression in the digital world. EFF and its over 13,000 dues-
This case calls on the Court to consider how trademark law can facilitate as
well as impede the growth of online speech and commerce, an issue of critical
advocates for these groups, amici have a perspective that is not represented by the
parties.
advertising platform (that among other things, allows advertisers to have their ads
†
PK law clerks Mart Kuhn and Jodie Graham assisted in the preparation of this
brief.
vi
display when users search for phrases such as “Rosetta Stone”) is liable for direct
Stone’s trademarks.
The court below held that Google was not directly or secondarily liable for
trademark infringement. This Court should affirm. While Google should prevail on
all of the questions before this court, amici argue that Google did not make
“trademark use” of Rosetta Stone’s marks at all, that any use Google did make was
fair, and that Google is not secondarily liable because most of its customers
vii
ARGUMENT
This Court should affirm the holding below. Because Google did not make
trademark use of Rosetta Stone’s marks, it cannot be directly liable for trademark
trademarks as trademarks—to identify the source of its own goods or services. But
because Google merely used Rosetta Stone’s trademarks to tune its advertising
tools and help businesses market their products, it did not violate the Lanham Act.
To the extent that Google made any kind of use of Rosetta Stone’s marks,
such use was fair, because it promoted lawful competition. Finally, Google is not
secondarily liable, not least because the typical keyword advertiser’s uses are
Google did not make a “trademark use” of Rosetta Stone’s marks, because it
did not use them to designate the source or origin of a product. Google uses
and in related tools. It does not use Rosetta Stone’s marks to indicate that its
Rosetta Stone advances a theory that would expand its control of its marks
1
able to control discussions of its products, stop lawful resellers, and prevent
(“RSB”) 12. Rosetta Stone complains, for instance, that “competitors, and other
third parties” have attracted customers by using Google’s advertising platform. Id.
But the purpose of trademark law is to prevent consumer confusion, not to protect
established businesses from competition. See discussion infra Parts II.A, II.C.
While Rosetta Stone has valid concerns about counterfeit or pirated copies of its
software, trademark law already addresses them. It is not necessary to craft a new
legal doctrine whereby advertisers cannot use the names of their competitors’
products in comparison ads, resellers cannot say the names of the products they
resell, and advertising platforms must cripple the usefulness of their product in
Rosetta Stone’s argument is incompatible with the statute. The Lanham Act
only creates liability for certain “uses” of marks, not for all uses of particular
words or phrases. New Kids on the Block v. News America Pub., 745 F. Supp.
1540, 1545 (C.D. Cal. 1990), aff’d, New Kids on the Block v. News America Pub.,
971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) (“the Lanham Act will not prohibit the use of
2
authorship, sponsorship, or endorsement by the [plaintiffs] or explicitly mislead as
to content.”) This understanding flows directly from the Lanham Act, which
provides that
Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant—(a) use in
commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a
registered mark in connection with the . . . advertising of any goods or
services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause
confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or (b) reproduce, counterfeit,
copy or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such . . . to be used in
commerce upon or in connection with the . . . advertising of goods or
services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause
confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action
by the registrant ....
trademark, noting that the use of certain phrases in keyword advertising tools and
Employees Insurance Company v. Google, 330 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Va. 2004)
(Geico) and Rescuecom v. Google, 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009), infra Part I.C. The
term “use in commerce” is quite broad. See 15 U.S.C. § 1127. But whether
trademark. The Act provides that “[t]he term “trademark” includes any word
[used] to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product,
from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods,
even if that source is unknown.” Id. Because Google uses words such as “Rosetta
3
Stone” in a way that does not “identify and distinguish [its] goods … from those
not using such words or phrases as trademarks. Google is using certain words and
phrases to help its customers tune their advertisements, and is selling access to a
keyword advertising platform. It is not using those words to indicate the origin of
its products, or to try to pass them off as coming from Rosetta Stone. In the context
of a use such as Google’s, where words or phrases trademarked by another are not
being used to indicate the source of goods or services, it is not accurate to say that
“trademarks” are being used, because words are only trademarks to the extent they
are used to identify goods.1 Because Google is not using Rosetta Stone’s marks in
Many courts have found that it is necessary to look beyond whether there
has been a “use” to see whether there has been a use as a trademark. For example,
the Sixth Circuit observed that “it is clear that a plaintiff must show that it has
actually used the designation at issue as a trademark, and that the defendant has
also used the same or a similar designation as a trademark.” Rock and Roll Hall of
1
Thus, Professor J. Thomas McCarthy’s observation that “there is no separate
statutory requirement of ‘trademark use’” is incorrect. MCCARTHY ON
TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION, § 23:11.50. To use a mark in commerce
is necessarily to use it as a trademark, since a word, phrase, or logo is only a mark
insofar as it designates the source of products.
4
Fame and Museum v. Gentile Productions, 134 F.3d 749, 754 (6th Cir. 1998)
(citing Holiday Inns v. 800 Reservation, 86 F.3d 619, 622-23 (6th Cir. 1996), cert.
denied, 519 U.S. 1093 (1997); Homeowners Group v. Home Marketing Specialists,
931 F.2d 1100, 1105 (6th Cir. 1991)). Later cases in the Sixth Circuit have
followed this reasoning. In Interactive Prods. v. a2z Mobile Office Solutions, 326
F.3d 687, 695 (6th Cir. 2003), the court wrote that “[i]f defendants are only using
of origin laws do not apply.” And just last year, the court repeated this analysis:
Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, 579 F.3d 603, 610 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
Numerous courts have found this reasoning persuasive, finding that the defendant’s
use must be a use as a trademark to trigger the infringement analysis. See Nagler v.
Garcia, 370 Fed. App’x 678, 680 (6th Cir. 2010) (following Interactive Prods.
Corp.); Volkswagen AG v. Dorling Kindersley Pub, 614 F. Supp. 2d 793, 809 (E.D.
Mich. 2009) (following Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, 581 F.3d 1317, 1330
(Fed. Cir. 2009)); Nova Wines v. Adler Fels Winery, 467 F. Supp. 2d 965, 978
(N.D. Cal. 2006) (following Vita-Mix Corp. and distinguishing between marks that
5
are part of the product itself and marks that are used as source indicators); U-Haul
Int’l. v. WhenU.com, 279 F. Supp. 2d 723, 728 (E.D. Va. 2003) (no violation of the
Lanham Act without evidence that defendant “use[d] [the plaintiff’s] trademarks to
identify the source of its goods or services”); Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com,
293 F. Supp. 2d 734, 757 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (“There can be no liability under the
Lanham Act absent the use of a trademark in a way that identifies the products and
New Kids, 971 F.2d 302, is a foundational case for the concept of the “fair
use” of trademarks, and is heavily cited on that basis. But that case also stands for
the proposition that certain uses are not “trademark uses” of any kind. The court
there stated that there are “use[s] to which the infringement laws simply do not
apply,” id. at 307, affirming the court below which had explained “that the Lanham
Act does not apply unless the defendants falsely and explicitly represented that
at 1545.
both cases, the seller provides access to a “namespace” which the buyer uses to
Solutions, 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999), where a domain name registrar stood
accused of trademark infringement, the court wrote that “[d]omain names, like
6
trade names, do not act as trademarks when they are used merely to identify a
business entity; in order to infringe they must be used to identify the source of
goods or services.” Id. at 956. Similarly, keywords do not act as trademarks; they
are simply ways for companies to display their ads to potential customers. They are
Rosetta Stone argues that “[s]everal courts have held that Google’s sale of
offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods and services.” RSB 26 n.4.
But whether a “use in commerce” took place is not relevant if there was no
trademark use to begin with. Thus, the cases Rosetta Stone relies on—none of
whether or not a use is “internal,” it could still qualify as a “use” under the Lanham
Act. Id. at 30. But this is not the relevant question: a court must ask whether a
“identify and distinguish his or her goods” does the Lanham Act even apply. See
supra Part I.A. The Rescuecom court appeared concerned that, if it adopted this
line of analysis, “the operators of search engines would be free to use trademarks
7
in ways designed to deceive and cause consumer confusion.” Rescuecom at 130.
But consumer confusion is most likely to arise when a defendant is making use of a
plaintiff’s mark to designate the source of its products. Non-trademark uses are
inherently non-confusing: when reading an ad that says, “RC Cola tastes better
than Pepsi,” a consumer is not tricked into thinking that Pepsi is behind the ad. A
confused into thinking that PETA is selling him the domain. And neither does a
keyword advertiser on Google’s advertising platform think that, because it sees the
words “Rosetta Stone” on screen and pays money to have its ads displayed when
users type in “Rosetta Stone,” that it is purchasing ad space from Rosetta Stone
relevant “trademark use,” and this line of reasoning is not likely to lead to
Geico, 330 F. Supp. 2d 700, falls into similar error. That case found “that
defendants use plaintiff’s trademarks to sell advertising space, and then link that
advertising to results of searches,” id. at 703-4, and held that this counted as
“trademark use.” But using a plaintiff’s marks to sell advertising and as part of a
marks to suggest that its products are in fact the defendant’s. These activities are
2
If consumers are confused by the content of an ad, then the advertiser itself may
be liable. Google could only be liable on a secondary basis. See infra Part II.C.
8
“uses,” but they are not uses of trademarks as trademarks. They cannot give rise to
liability.
platform sells advertising space to a company, and that company then advertises to
the public, the public might be confused into thinking that the advertising platform
has a business relationship with the trademark holder (i.e., one that gave it
Id. at 704. This argument fails in the present case because Google’s use of Rosetta
Stone’s marks was not a trademark use. The court posits hypothetical confused
members of the public who think that selling keyword advertising space implies a
licensing arrangement. But this cannot change Google’s uses of Rosetta Stone’s
trademarks, which are not trademark uses because Google is not using them to
3
The court below states that “the relevant market here is not the public at-large,
but only potential buyers of [Rosetta Stone’s] products.” Memorandum Opinion
(“MO”) 27. But the market for Google’s advertising products is not users of its
search engine, or potential buyers of language software. MO 19 (“[Google] does
not sell Google-made products on its website.”]). Its market consists of potential
advertisers, and the most relevant question is whether Google is passing off its
products to them.
9
designate the source of its advertising products, into a trademark use. Absence of
infringement. But the presence of confusion, without more, does not create
do not expand the scope of rights granted to trademark owners, and even some
confusing trademark uses are not infringing if they are also fair uses. Century 21
Real Estate v. LendingTree, 425 F.3d 211, 230 (3d Cir. 2005) (“Even if it is found
that a defendant’s intent is improper and its use of a mark could cause confusion,
the defendant could conceivably prove that even its potentially confusing use is
fair because it is reasonably limited and necessary . . . ”); New Kids, 745 F. Supp.
at 1545 (Arguing that the “risk that some people might think that [plaintiffs]
4
This is why Professor J. Thomas McCarthy’s view that “trademark use” is an
unnecessary concept, because “there must be a likelihood of confusion for
infringement to occur,” is misguided. MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR
COMPETITION, § 23:11.50. While it is true that there must be a likelihood of
confusion for infringement to occur, it is going too far to say that all confusing
uses are necessarily infringing. This expands the rights of mark owners, who
traditionally only control the right to use their marks to identify the source of
products. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has also ruled that the likelihood of
confusion test is not a proxy for proving trademark use, reasoning that “the proper
foci of the likelihood of confusion test are the two competing trademarks as they
are used in commerce, as opposed to the products marked or ancillary designations
not used as trademarks.” Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, 581 F.3d 1317, 1330
(Fed. Cir. 2009).
10
Amendment concerns); contra Playboy Enterprises v. Netscape Communications,
354 F. 3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004) (relying on pre-New Kids reasoning).
use of the plaintiff’s mark was a relevant trademark use, GEICO’s argument
collapses the distinction between secondary and direct trademark liability, and
contributory infringement. See Inwood Labs v. Ives Labs, 456 U.S. 844, 854 (1982)
continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is
for any harm done as a result of the deceit.”) But under GEICO’s line of reasoning,
any time a defendant is liable for secondary infringement, it is also liable for direct
infringement, because the confused customers of the “primary” direct infringer (the
advertiser) might think that there was some business relationship between the
plaintiff and the defendant. Finding a defendant both directly and secondarily
liable for the same act is odd enough. But more dangerously, under this argument,
infringement any time one of its customers infringes, even in situations where it
would not be secondarily liable. Rosetta Stone argues for a similar theory,
11
discussed infra, Part II.B. But plaintiffs cannot be allowed to do an end-run around
3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (PETA). See GEICO, 330 F. Supp. 2d at 703-704. This is
wrong for two reasons. First, in PETA, unlike both GEICO and the present case,
there may have been a “trademark use” at issue. In that case, a defendant was sued
by PETA for operating the domain name “peta.org.” While there are numerous
non-infringing fair uses that the domain name “peta.org” might be put to by users
other than PETA, a person who registers the domain name “peta.org” is arguably,
at least, using the acronym “PETA” as a trademark—to designate the source of his
infringer, not a company that provided a service to the direct infringer. Even if the
operator of “peta.org” was infringing, this does not mean that the registrar that sold
it the domain itself was liable for infringement. In the present case, Google’s
situation is more analogous to the registrar than to the allegedly infringing user,
and precedent suggests that an actor in that situation is not secondarily liable. See
12
* * *
Because Google does not make “trademark use” of Rosetta Stone’s marks, it
II. Google’s Uses of Rosetta Stone’s Marks, As Well As the Uses of Most of
Its Customers, Are Fair
Neither Google’s uses of Rosetta Stone’s marks, nor the uses many of
Google’s advertising customers, are “trademark uses” at all. But in trademark, the
term “fair use” has been used to refer both to uses that are trademark uses, but are
nonetheless lawful, and to uses to which the Lanham Act does not even apply in
the first instance.5 New Kids, 971 F.2d at 307-308, is illustrative of this. There, the
5
This operates differently than copyright, where “fair use,” 17 U.S.C. § 107,
applies to uses that implicate rights under § 106, not to uses that are non-infringing
because they are not contemplated within the scope of a copyright holder’s
exclusive rights. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 447-51
(1984).
13
Coty, 264 U.S. 359, 368, 44 S.Ct. 350, 351, 68 L.Ed. 731 (1924) (Holmes,
J.).
Thus, in this section amici argue that Google’s use of Rosetta Stone’s marks, and
the typical Google advertiser’s use of Rosetta Stone’s marks were fair uses,
whether or not those uses are even the kinds of “trademark uses” the Lanham Act
is concerned with.
Rosetta Stone seeks to change the scope of trademark law, and to grant itself
the right to cripple advertising platforms and silence competitors. While it has
brought suit against Google, it is targeting not only Google’s activities, but the
activities of legitimate advertisers. For example, it writes that Google should “stop
selling the Rosetta Stone Marks to unauthorized third parties,” RSB 49, as though
it had the right to “authorize” all uses of its marks. But as Justice Holmes pointed
out long ago, a trademark “does not confer a right to prohibit the use of the word or
words. It is not a copyright. . . . A trade-mark only gives the right to prohibit the
use of it so far as to protect the owner’s good will against the sale of another’s
product as his.” Prestonettes v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359, 368 (1924). The doctrine of
“fair use” in trademark assures that the valid interests of competitors and the public
Fair use is necessary to facilitate free expression and the exchange of ideas.
Justice Ginsburg has noted that while “[t]he First Amendment securely protects the
14
freedom to make . . . one’s own speech,” it also bears on the right to repeat “other
people’s speeches.” Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 221 (2003). Allowing “fair
use” of protected marks is necessary to reconcile the First Amendment with the
Lanham Act. Cf. id. at 197, 219–20 (discussing “fair use” in copyright context, and
Act’s restriction on the uses of particular words runs contrary to the First
narrowly to avoid such a conflict.” Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 998 (2d Cir.
1989). To the extent that trademark law “deplete[s] the stock of useful words” by
providing “exclusive rights in them,” New Kids, 971 F.2d at 306, it implicates both
the rights to make “one’s own speech” and “other people’s speeches.” Trademark’s
“fair use” doctrines narrow the scope of trademark infringement in both of these
descriptive term for his exclusive use and so prevent others from accurately
describing a characteristic of their goods.” New Kids, 971 F.2d at 306. As such, it
protects the right to make one’s own speech, permitting the use of words according
15
confusion. See KP Permanent Make-Up v. Lasting Impression I, 543 U.S. 109, 121
use . . . .”).
“Nominative” fair use, on the other hand, protects the right to make other
people’s speeches, namely by using “the mark to refer to the trademarked good
itself.” Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. v. Tabari, 610 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010).
Unlike descriptive fair use, “nominative fair use is not specifically provided for by
nominative fair use, can raise serious First Amendment concerns because it can
comparative advertising impossible.” New Kids, 971 F.2d at 308. Even courts that
have declined to adopt a “nominative fair use” test under that name have
“recognized the underlying principle.” Universal Commc’n Sys. v. Lycos, 478 F.3d
413, 424–25 (1st Cir. 2007); see also Nat. Fed’n of the Blind v. Loompanics
Enters., 936 F. Supp. 1232, 1240–41 (D. Md. 1996) (“[Nominative fair use] test is,
for the most part, a restatement of two basic principles of trademark law.”).
16
Fair use is a vital doctrine that promotes competition, expression, and
consumer welfare. Therefore, this Court should not allow Rosetta Stone to prevent
Google makes several uses of Rosetta Stone’s marks.6 It uses them to trigger
Sponsored Links (that is, when users search for a term, advertisers can pay to have
their ads display alongside the “organic” results of its search algorithm), MO 30,
and it auctions the right to have certain Sponsored Links displayed against certain
advertise against. MO 33. As an initial matter, these are fair uses because they are
not trademark uses. See supra, Part I. But even if they are “trademark uses,” they
are fair.
of the right to have their ads displayed when users search for certain terms, are
non-confusing uses and therefore fair. Under the doctrine of nominative fair use, a
defendant can use a plaintiff’s trademark to refer to the plaintiff’s products as long
as doing so does not cause “confusion about the source of [the] defendant’s
6
Google writes that it “prohibits its employees from suggesting trademarks as part
of the keyword optimization process.” Google’s Opening Brief (“GB”) 20. But
even if Google did suggest trademarks, such suggestions would be fair uses.
17
product or the mark-holder’s sponsorship or affiliation.” Merck & Co. v. Mediplan
Health Consulting, 425 F. Supp. 2d 402, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Tiffany (NJ) v.
eBay, 600 F.3d 93, 102-03 (2d Cir. 2010). Rosetta Stone has not presented any
evidence that potential advertisers are confused by Google’s Query Suggestion tool
thinking that they were purchasing ad space from Rosetta Stone rather than from
Google. Therefore, this Court should find that Google’s advertising platform
public that results from Google’s display of Sponsored Links. RSB 27. In Rosetta
Stone’s view, Google is directly liable for trademark infringement because some
number of its users viewed confusing ads, or visited confusing websites, after
having used Google’s search tool. But Google cannot be held directly liable for the
secondarily liable. Similarly to the court in Geico, see supra Part I.C, Rosetta
Stone is attempting to bypass the Supreme Court’s test for secondary liability by
reframing the issue as one of direct liability. If Rosetta Stone’s evidence about
context. Because many of the advertisers who use Rosetta Stone’s marks are
18
making fair uses, and because, as argued below, Google is not secondarily liable
for trademark infringement, its display of ads in response to search queries such as
do so for various purposes. Rosetta Stone has presented evidence that some use the
marks for counterfeit products, RSB 31, but the court below recognized that
Google takes proper steps to deal with these infringing uses, MO 11-12, and is
therefore not secondarily liable under the tests established by Inwood and Tiffany.
MO 32, 37. But Rosetta Stone does not only want Google to take more action to
deal with infringing users: It wants Google to discontinue its practice of auctioning
keywords, and has raised the issue of whether many established, typical advertising
uses of its marks are lawful. It complains of Google displaying ads for “companies
that compete with Rosetta Stone products,” RSB 12, and urges the Court to note, as
companies “that sell genuine Rosetta Stone product” and “competing language-
learning software,” RSB 32, and to companies that sell “similar goods” to Rosetta
Stone, RSB 33. Throughout its argument, Rosetta Stone uses the term
“unauthorized,” indicating that in its view the only valid uses of Rosetta Stone’s
marks are ones it has expressly authorized. Because Rosetta Stone has raised the
19
issue of whether Google’s typical advertising customers make lawful use of
Rosetta Stone’s marks, this Court should find that typical advertising uses, such as
uses for “comparison, criticism, and point of reference,” New Kids, 971 F.2d at
306, are fair. Indeed, the fact that typical advertisers are lawful should be part of
fair users; both have a strong and valid need to make references to Rosetta Stone’s
marks, either to truthfully indicate where their products originate, Toyota Motor
Sales, 610 F.3d at 1177, or to draw a distinction between Rosetta Stone’s products
and their own, August Storck K.G. v. Nabisco, 59 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1995)
of the advertisers’ uses must be taken into account, not just “the mere presence of
the mark on the website.” Century 21, 425 F.3d at 231. As the Ninth Circuit
pointed out, “it is often virtually impossible to refer to a particular product for
without using the mark.” New Kids, 971 F.2d at 306. Advertisers’ use of Rosetta
Stone’s marks are such uses. Without actually using the words “Rosetta Stone,” it
would be very difficult, if not impossible, for competitors to present their products
20
would be difficult for critics to present their point of view to Rosetta Stone users.
New Kids, 971 F.2d at 306-30. Given the necessity of use of the “Rosetta Stone”
mark to facilitate competition and criticism and the use of the mark for these
purposes, this Court should recognize that use of trademarks as keyword triggers or
marketplace by preserving the clarity of the language of trade.” Stacey L. Dogan &
HOUS. L. REV. 777, 788 (2004). This purpose is also served by the fair use of
trademarks, which helps ensure that consumers receive fair, accurate, and
forthright information. For example, some advertisers pay Google to have their
7
Though district courts in this circuit have thus far declined to specifically adopt a
nominative fair use defense, they have been receptive to the underlying principles.
See Maurag v. Bertuglia, 494 F. Supp. 2d. 395, 398 n.3 (E.D. Va. 2007);
Loompanics, 936 F. Supp. at 1240-41.
21
advertisements displayed when users search for certain terms. Some indicate that
they are lawful resellers of Rosetta Stone software—even if these resellers are
indicate that their products originate with Rosetta Stone. Some use Rosetta Stone’s
marks in the text of their ads to indicate that they have a competing product, or to
compare their products to Rosetta Stone’s. These kinds of uses are usually non-
trademark uses, because the advertisers are not trying to pass off their products as
coming from Rosetta Stone, and are therefore fair. In any event, Rosetta Stone has
not presented legally sufficient evidence of confusion, GB 22, so even to the extent
these uses are trademark uses, they are fair. This Court should recognize that fair
uses promote consumer welfare, and that Rosetta Stone may not stop them.
Many courts have followed this approach and held that uses of trademarks to
For example, in Playboy Enterprises v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002), the
court upheld Welles’ use of Playboy’s marks in the metatags of her website, noting
that respondent would have “no way of identifying the content of her website
without reference” to Playboy’s trademark. The court further observed that, in the
22
critiques of Playboy on the internet would have a difficult time if internet
sites could not list the object of their critique in their metatags.
The court also noted that precluding such use “would hinder the free flow of
information on the internet, which is certainly not the intent of trademark law.”
804. See also Smith v. Chanel, 402 F.2d 562, 569 (9th Cir. 1968) (holding that “in
in promoting his own goods may use the trademark of another to identify the
latter’s goods,” and permitting a competitor to use the Chanel mark to suggest that
AG v. Church, 411 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1969) (holding that defendant’s use of the
Volkswagen mark to mention the fact that it offered repair services for
Volkswagen cars was permissible); New Kids, 971 F.2d 302 (defendant
permissible); WCVB-TV v. Boston Athletic Association, 926 F.2d 42 (1st Cir. 1991)
(holding that defendant television station’s use of the plaintiff’s trademark “Boston
Marathon” to describe the event it was broadcasting was permissible). This Court
should follow these cases, and recognize that Rosetta Stone’s competitors make
many fair uses of Rosetta Stone’s marks, including by having their ads display in
23
* * *
Both Google and typical advertisers make fair use of Rosetta Stone’s marks.
CONCLUSION
and because Google’s typical advertising customers make fair use of the marks,
this Court should affirm the court below and hold that Google is neither
24
Respectfully submitted,
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
December 6, 2010
By /s Harold Feld
Legal Director
Public Knowledge
Attorney for Amici Curiae
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Harold Feld, certify that on December 6, 2010, this document was served
on all parties through CM/ECF. I further certify that I caused eight printed copies
December 6, 2010
/s Harold Feld
Legal Director
Public Knowledge
Attorney for Amici Curiae
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2007
_______ Caption: ROSETTA
__________________________________________________
STONE LTD., v. GOOGLE INC.
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 28.1(e)(2) or
32(a)(7)(B) because:
[Appellant’s Opening Brief, Appellee’s Response Brief, and Appellant’s Response/Reply Brief may
not exceed 14,000 words or 1,300 lines; Appellee’s Opening/Response Brief may not exceed 16,500
words or 1,500 lines; any Reply or Amicus Brief may not exceed 7,000 words or 650 lines; line count
may be used only with monospaced type]
[!] this brief contains 5966 [state the number of] words, excluding the parts
of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), or
[ ] this brief uses a monospaced typeface and contains [state the number
of] lines of text, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type
style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because:
[14-point font must be used with proportional typeface, such as Times New Roman or CG Times;
12-point font must be used with monospaced typeface, such as Courier or Courier New]
[!] this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Word 2011
Mac [state name and version of word processing program] in Times New
Roman 14 [state font size and name of the type style]; or
(s)Harold Feld