5175633
story
Comments: 213 +- Your Rights Online: Rosetta Stone Sues Google For Trademark Violation on Sunday July 12, @03:01PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbusiness.gif); width:64px; height:54px;
business
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgoogle.gif); width:104px; height:38px;
google
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnews.gif); width:60px; height:66px;
news
adeelarshad82 writes that earlier this week "Rosetta Stone, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Google Inc in a US federal court, alleging trademark infringement. In the lawsuit, the company alleged that Google is allowing third parties, including individuals involved in software piracy, to purchase the right to use its trademarks — or other 'confusingly similar' terms — in Google's Adwords advertising program."
Related Stories
Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the
victims he intends to eat until he eats them.
-- Samuel Butler (1835-1902)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Has this not already been attempted? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes but it is a valid concern (Score:5, Informative)
I work in internet advertising (one of the very numerous google adwords certified individuals and so on) and see problems from this nearly weekly.
Your competitor (or even a scam site) begins advertising when people search for your company? Not much you can do about it. They even reference to your company in ad description? Still not much you can do about it.
Technically you can apply for protections concerning your trademark but they only work for specific terms (ie: What you've trademarked. Any typos, product names you haven't specifically registered, slang words that people use about your product but aren't exactly the trademark, etc. can't be protected) and even then, if Google rejects the application, there is little you can do.
You can't even contact them. Google AdWords certified companies have a specific individual as their contact person for Google but for anyone not using services by one of us... They can mail Google and get a copypaste answer that doesn't help anything at all. Or they can go to google webmasters' area and make a thread about it (though that usually helps even less)...
So, yeah. The problem does exist.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I work in internet advertising (one of the very numerous google adwords certified individuals and so on) and see problems from this nearly weekly. Your competitor (or even a scam site) begins advertising when people search for your company? Not much you can do about it. They even reference to your company in ad description? Still not much you can do about it... ...So, yeah. The problem does exist.
I can see why this is a problem for you, but not why it is a problem for society in general. I mean, it's a problem for me, when competitors offer to do the same job better and for less, but that doesn't mean there should be a legal method for me to stifle competition. Your competitors have the right to advertise competing products to people and they have the right to reference your products by name. It's freedom of speech and it makes for more competitive markets. The solution is to stop trying to find a w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't necessarily agree with you. In general on your points I do. Provide a better service, a cheaper service, etc... I just don't know if you can apply it here. This is different.
Re:Yes but it is a valid concern (Score:5, Insightful)
But do competitors have the right to profit using your own trademark?
Yes! They absolutely do. I can tell you Microsoft sucks go with RedHat and thereby profit by making a commission while using the trademark "Microsoft". So long as I'm not confusing anyone into thinking RedHat is made by Microsoft, MS should have no ability to use the courts to limit my free speech.
It's that they are using the name recognition of the Rosetta Software to peddle their own product.
So? Do they have some inherent right to control and stop any and all free speech with regard to their trademarks? Google Docs is like MS Office but free and in a Web page. You should pay me money to implement it at your company. There I just used MS's trademarked term again using their brand recognition to profit using a competitor. Are you telling me that should be illegal? What justification is there for suppressing my free speech in such a case? I don't see it at all.
Parent
Bad Analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a bad analogy as Google does not alter their search results for advertisers. The ads are displayed *beside* or *above* the results, and are clearly marked.
A better analogy would be if LG paid Best Busy so that whenever someone came in and asked about a Sony TV, Best buy had to also tell them "also, just FYI, we have this LG model".
I don't see anything wrong with that whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
That question is too vague to answer.
They aren't allowed to try and pretend to be you, or claim approval from you, or claim any relationship exists.
But they can sure as hell say they're better than you, or suggest you try them instead of you.
And provided they steer clear of defamation they can even make fun of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Using competitor names in keyword advertising seems to me to be a reasonable extension of this. When I search for Kleenex, I'm really interested in facial tissue; For competitors to be blocked from being visible in the context of this sort of search seems pretty unreasonable to me. If I go to a store and ask where their Kle
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Trademark is intended solely to stop one company from representing its products as being another company's products. If a company doesn't pretend they're SELLING Rosetta Stone products, there should be no problem referencing their competitor... and that's GOOD.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
If I walk into a store and ask the clerk, "where's the Rosetta Stone software" the shelf he will direct me to has the competing software RIGHT NEXT to it, perhaps with stickers bragging how much better it is than Rosetta.
Trying to get your software to show up when somebody googles a competitor is the same thing.
And if you think it is different because they are paying Google for it, the same thing happens in stores(pay-for-placement on shelves) and in newspaper ads. Every magazine I've dealt(admittedly only a dozen or so) with let me buy an ad on the facing page from a competitor's ad, some would even call me up pro-actively if I'd bought space from them before.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From experience I'll tell you that Rosetta Stone isn't very good. The principle of learning by induction by seeing captioned pictures and repeating voiced words is a poor one. They say it's how a child learns their first language, but:
1) Children take YEARS to reach any reasonable standard in their first language.
2) Children learn the mistakes in their grammar by free interaction with their parents and others. Where mistakes will be verbally corrected, and questions of confusion can be asked and answered.
3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I agree that it is not good to stifle competition, but your statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how markets work. Cheaper, faster, and better does not necessarily result in a more successful product. More effective advertising often makes an inferior product more successful.
Allowing Google to put trademark keywords up for sale enables companies with greater funding to use another's trademarks to sell their own products.
There is a difference between referencing a trademark in your advertisem
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Beware the Stone. $548?
Don't Get Ripped Off By The Stone.
Learn Spanish w/ Awesome 6 DVD Set
easy.BuenoEntonces.com/Spanish
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a difference between referencing a trademark in your advertisement and using that trademark to sell your product. For example, it is acceptable to say my shoes are better than Nikes, but it is not acceptable for me to sell my shoes under Nikes name. IMHO, allowing Google to redirect trademark searches to a competitors site is a trademark violation.
So if I search for "ford honda mazda" which search results should I get then? None? I think it's fundamentally flawed to assume that just because I search for brand name(s) I shouldn't get an ad that says "See the new Toyota 2009 models". I think it's perfectly fair that companies can advertise to say "Hey, we're an alternative to $foo that you just searched for". Comparing it to selling under a competitor's name is comparing apples and pink flamingos.
This is not a free market issue. (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution is to stop trying to find a way to keep your customers from learning about competitors and start making your product better and cheaper.
No. We are talking about scam sites. Rosetta is complaining about illegal sites selling their product illegally being capable of advertising through google's services.
I can go to an online shop selling Nike shoes. If they have google Ads, there is a high chance Ads of fake Nike sellers will appear. If I am Nike, I am competing with criminals. If I am a shopper, I may get conned into buying fake merchandise.
This is not a free market issue.
Re:This is not a free market issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
So can you go to any newspaper and advertise your con business freely? Just try and see what happens.
Yes, you can. Do you really think that the newspapers employ an army of lawyers to exhaustively vet submitted ads for trademark violation or other criminal activity? Unless it really obviously sticks out, your ad will be published with no questions asked.
The papers will just rely on trademark law, in the same manner that Google does, to hand the legal obligation off to the advertiser. They may also decide to clarify that point via their terms & conditions.
Parent
Re:Yes but it is a valid concern (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't competitors. The problem is fraud.
Then have you sued the people committing the fraud? Are you alleging Google is committing a trademark violation by running ads from other companies? The courts have already decided on that one for all other mediums. Go after the company placing the ad. You can even subpoena the records of who they are from Google.
We occasionally see ads on Google that are specifically designed to look like they are from us, using our exact name.
So what, I see people trying to run all sorts of scams over the internet. I don't sue the company hosting their page. I don't sue craigslist if someone tries to use their service to commit a crime. You sue the criminal, not the company being used just because they happen to have more money.
Parent
somewhat ironic choice however (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sort of ironic that of all the people complaining the one here is the Rosetta Stone inc.
it's ironic on several levels. first, they are pilfering their very name from the public domain. (now they think the concept can apply to no others?) Second, it's a very very commonly used name. I know of many many companies using it, many of them in the same domain of study (e.g. biotech).
but perhaps most of all is that original Rosetta Stone itself's place in history was inference process of transitive association: "this well known thing, is the same as this lesser known thing". which is exactly what google is selling. you search for one thing and it, esepcially ad sense, returns other related things that might be substitutable but with a different origin and previously unknown to you.
they should reflect on why they called themselves rosetta stone.
Parent
Since 196BC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Since 196BC (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, this was modded as funny, but it probably should have been insightful. Why is it that we let companies trademark words which are already in the common lexicon?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, if I buy an Apple computer, I want to know that it is really an Apple computer, not a computer that looks like Apple with cheap parts and a USB port that doesn't eve
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But at the same time, what's the problem with someone saying if you like "Starkist, you should try Shodee!". There's nothing confusing there. They are clearly offering a different brand of Tuna. It's not reasonable to sue the newspaper for carrying Shodde's ad.
If we are going to allow common words to be trademarked for products, then those trademarks need to be very narrow. In any event, the fair use of trademarks needs to be quite broad (just short of claiming your product is actually someone else's).
I sup
Re:Since 196BC (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it that we let companies trademark words which are already in the common lexicon?
Not to defend the Rosetta Stone's asinine lawsuit here, but trademark law (in theory) only lets companies control pre-existing words to the extent that they identify its product. Trademark law does not let them restrict all uses of the mark.
So Rosetta Stone company's trademark does not prevent you from saying things like,
"I visited the Rosetta Stone."
"Bob is as helpful to us as the Rosetta Stone was for egyptologists!"
or even
"Taking the Berlitz foreign language course was like finding the Rosetta Stone for me!"
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that we let companies trademark words which are already in the common lexicon?
Because the trademark granted is only within their respective industry, and if it's a common word, is generally restricted in how the trademark applies.
Just because Apple Inc. has a trademark doesn't mean you can't sell apples (fruit) or even records (Apple Records) or a bank (Apple Bank), etc.
Re:Since 196BC (Score:5, Informative)
Like Google?
No, You're thinking of a googol [wikipedia.org], admittedly the founders of Google thought they were naming their company after 1*10^100, but they accidentaly got it wrong
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To quote DNA.... the "Googleplex Star Thinker in the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity which can calculate the trajectory of every single dust particle throughout a five-week Dangrabad Beta sand blizzard".
Admittedly, I had thought the same when I first heard the name "Google". It is not a bad association. Maybe DNA made the same mistake or decided that "Googolplex" didn't sound as nice.
(disclaimer, my employer is Google)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Barney 10^100 (Score:2)
Google is a bastardization of "Googol", a very large number. It entered the lexicon after the word's existence.
"Googol" in turn appears to a bastardization of Google [wikipedia.org]
Being able to trademark "Rosetta Stone" in the domain of translation is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard
Even worse: trying to secure trade dress protection for game rules that are common in computer puzzle games. In a lawsuit [gamasutra.com], The Tetris Company names nine elements that, when taken together, are distinctive to Tetris. But all but one (pieces made up of four unit squares connected on their sides) are also present in Dr. Mario, and several are present in Puyo Pop, Pac-Attack, and numerous other falling block games.
I think I'll trademark just "Stone" for a company that sells rocks
Or how about "Staples" for a retail store t
Goths... since 1989CE (Score:2)
In other other news, Goths sue over confusion with 90's Liverpudlian jingly-guitar dancefloor doom merchants who frequently tickled the top end of the indie & dance charts.
http://www.myspace.com/undertherosettastone [myspace.com]
Re:Since 196BC (Score:4, Interesting)
I did find it humorous that, in a search for 'Rosetta Stone', the actual artifact doesn't appear until 3/4 of the way down the first page. At least it shows up on the first page. I noticed the following stats:
Links regarding actual Rosetta stone artifact: 5
Links regarding Rosetta Stone Inc.: 15
Links to other language translator companies: 4
Number of above links that actually looks like trademark infringement: 1 (www.Rosetta.StoneLanguages.com)
Other Rosetta Stone links (Rock band, unix based translator, Mac OS X ppc emulator): 3
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
This is unfortunately a problem with search engines that's only getting worse. If it's not for sale it's becoming harder and harder to find. Google should have a non-commercial flag. Of course, that would conflict with their revenue stream.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.
More details here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWP-AsG5DRk [youtube.com]
Bottom line. (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems they are being very proactive (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no idea whether what they are doing is legal or not, and I'll bet there has never been a court case like this ever, nor is there a law that covers it directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Another quick Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=lawsuits+over+adwords+trademark&aq=f&oq=&aqi= [google.com]
Yes, there have been other lawsuits like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are doing their homework -- sueing Google is listed as step #62 for improving your sites ranking....
http://www.seobook.com/archives/001792.shtml [seobook.com]
I am sure that they will get plenty of free press out of this. Creative marketing applied.
Bit like Ryanair's CEO saying that passengers will need to stand for the duration of the flight (yeah right) or that they need to pay to use the toilet on board.
Rosetta Stone Inc should be ashamed.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, get it right please.... (Score:2)
The French looted the Rosetta Stone from the wall of a fort in Egypt while trying to strengthen the place.
The whinging Poms nicked it while the cheese-eating surrender monkeys were trying to smuggle it out and decided to keep it safe in the one place the Frenchies didn't have access to. Old Blighty.
The Egyptians have since rebuilt the wall with stones looted from a temple near Karnak.
Re: (Score:2)
Rosetta is a city in Egypt where the stone was found. So every stone in the city is a Rosetta stone. Google should do turnabout and counter sue the company for trademarking a generic term. I'm sure the city of Rosetta wasn't asked for permission to use their name.
The real problem.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Last month, Google changed its policy stating that "advertisers will be allowed to use trademark terms in their ad text even if they do not own that trademark or have explicit approval from the trademark owner to use it," Rosetta Stone said
The problem is NOT Google infringing upon the trademarks that Rosetta Stone holds. The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit. This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue. I'm confused though, as to why Google JUST now started to allow this. If it was a no-brainer back when Adwords started, wouldn't they have allowed it at that point? Sounds to me like Adwords revenue was down, and allowing the use of non-approved trademarks in ads made the Adsword space that much more appealing in hopes of getting people off the fence when evaluating their advertising budget.
Re:The real problem.... (Score:5, Insightful)
until it is illegal to suggest alternatives or present your product as an alternative this lawsuit is baseless
Parent
Re:The real problem.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is NOT Google infringing upon the trademarks that Rosetta Stone holds. The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit. This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.
How is that obvious infringement? These are trademarks, not copyrights. If the public is not being confused into thinking a product is actually made by a different company, there is no justification for trademark infringement. If Crest pays to show ads when I do a search for Colgate, that's a good thing. And no, I don't think anyone is being tricked into thinking Crest is made by the same company as Colgate.
These overly litigious barrators should be slapped down by the courts. Make your products better and cheaper. Stop trying to prevent customers from seeing ads from competitors and crapping on free speech to do it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit. This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.
Except for the fact that Joe Schmuck has every right to use his competitor's trademark in any way he sees fit, provided he does not attempt to confuse said trademark with his own product.
Buying the "Rosetta Stone" adword and putting in the add "Professional Language Learning Software" is perfectly legit and legal so long as the add does not imply that the language learning software company you are going to is Rosetta Stone.
If they dress up the web site to look very similar to the Rosetta Stone website, or a
Something is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just not right...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with this is that the museum that's is in possession of the fossil can't market it self using the name and picture of the thing... That's just not right...
That's true; it's just not right. Assuming that by "right" you mean "correct": The Natural History Museum of Oslo can, and does, advertise Ida [nhm.uio.no] with the name and picture.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Coke puts a commerical out saying 'Pepsi is horrible, drink Coke' Pepsi doesn't/can't sue Coke for using its trademark... It's that simple, how do these guys think they have a case
This is a bit more as though Pepsi redesigned its packaging to look a bit like Coke's, then started a series of commercials showing that packaging and claiming it's Coke, to trick Coca-Cola fans into buying it. But even that analogy isn't quite on the spot: It's more as though Pepsi registered Coka-Cola.com, and Google suggested and sold ads linking to it when folks search for "Coke" or "Coca-Cola", with a line like "Enjoy delicious Coke here!"
If Google restricted trademarks in their ads to clear comparat
Oh god... (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is not selling anybody trademarks.
Nobody can, after paying Goolge some money, use those trademarks to advertise their products and services.
Google is selling ads, and they are facilitating the ad placement by telling you which information will exist in the same page.
That is not trademark violation by any sane definition....