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
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rosetta Stone Reply Brief

Rosetta Stone Reply Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 230 |Likes:
Published by Eric Goldman

More info:

Published by: Eric Goldman on Dec 14, 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

06/13/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 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
 __________________________ 
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
 __________________________ Clifford M. SloanMitchell S. Ettinger Jennifer L. SpazianoSKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP1440 New York Avenue NWWashington, DC 20005Phone Number: 202.371.7000Email: cliff.sloan@skadden.comCounsel for Appellant
Case: 10-2007 Document: 137 Date Filed: 12/13/2010 Page: 1
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................iiiINTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1I. GOOGLE IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ONTHE DIRECT TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS........................3A. Rosetta Stone’s Direct Liability Claim Is Not Premised OnInitial Interest Confusion.......................................................................3B. Confusion Is Presumed As A Matter Of Law.......................................6C. Google’s Use Of The Rosetta Stone Marks Results In ALikelihood Of Confusion......................................................................71. Google’s Practices Must Be Considered In Context AndCannot Be Analyzed Piecemeal..................................................72. All Nine Factors Relevant To The Likelihood Of Confusion Analysis Favor Confusion.......................................10(a) The Undisputed Factors Are Relevant To Google’sPractices And Favor Confusion......................................11(b) Evidence Of Actual Confusion Defeats SummaryJudgment.........................................................................12(c) Intent And Consumer Sophistication Favor Confusion........................................................................18II. THE FUNCTIONALITY DOCTRINE HAS NO APPLICATION TOGOOGLE’S USE OF THE ROSETTA STONE MARKS...........................20III. GOOGLE IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ONTHE SECONDARY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS............21A. Google Is Not Entitled To Summary Judgment On ContributoryInfringement........................................................................................22B. Google Is Not Entitled To Summary Judgment On VicariousInfringement........................................................................................25
Case: 10-2007 Document: 137 Date Filed: 12/13/2010 Page: 2
 
 
iiIV. GOOGLE IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ONTHE TRADEMARK DILUTION CLAIM...................................................25V. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING ROSETTASTONE’S UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIM..............................................29CONCLUSION........................................................................................................32
Case: 10-2007 Document: 137 Date Filed: 12/13/2010 Page: 3

Activity (3)

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

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)//-->