Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Businesses Google The Internet News

Rosetta Stone Sues Google For Trademark Violation 213

Posted by timothy from the chilling-effects-hit-businesses-too dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rosetta Stone Sues Google For Trademark Violation More

Rosetta Stone Sues Google For Trademark Violation

Comments Filter:
  • ... and didn't it fail?

    • Yes but it is a valid concern (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:14PM (#28669385)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 )

        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)

          by Liquidrage ( 640463 )
          But do competitors have the right to profit using your own trademark? That's more the case in point. It's not that they are doing it better. It's that they are using the name recognition of the Rosetta Software to peddle their own product.

          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)

            by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @04:01PM (#28669735)

            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.

            • You went off on a tangent there.

              If we used the best buy example..Someone walks into Best Buy and asks to see a "Sony TV", and LG has paid Best Buy to show LG TV's instead whenever someone came in and asks for Sony, that would be closer tot he point at hand.

              I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this needing a "law", or with the suit. However it is not a simple case of "be better/cheaper" which is what I replied to.

              • Bad Analogy (Score:3, Insightful)

                by brunes69 ( 86786 )

                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)

              by siloko ( 1133863 )
              This is all a little academic because the issue is much narrower than that discussed here. It is related to placing ads on pages after a particular search term has been used. E.g. I search for Rosetta Stone Software and a competitor has bought the ad rights to that term and thus their advertisement is placed on the search results page. They need not reference Rosetta Stone software in their ad at all, either for disparagement, comparison or subtefuge. Whether this should be legal or not is far from clear, p

            • 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.

              Here's how I'd frame the issue:
              Should RedHat be able to list their company under "Microsoft" in the phonebook?
              Should Joe's Burger Shack be able to list their company under McDonald's?

              Because that's essentially what's being discussed here.
              Commercial speech comes saddled with a different rules than the ones you and I enjoy.

              • That's not exactly the question at hand. The issue isn't about Joe's Burger Shack calling themselves McDonalds. The question is whether Joe's Burger Shack should be allowed to buy advertising next to the listing for McDonalds and, quite frankly, I can't see why not.

          • But do competitors have the right to profit using your own trademark?

            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)

              by aj50 ( 789101 )

              But they're not allowed to use it for any commercial purpose other than competitive advertising without permission.

              Want to write a book about Ruby on Rails and use the Rails logo? Not unless it's endorsed by David Heinemeier Hansson [rubyinside.com]

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Toonol ( 1057698 )
                That's not entirely true. You can't use the logo to deceptively suggest your book is authorized by or affiliated to the trademark owner (Hansson). But you're well within your rights to, withing the book, say: "This is the Rails logo:" and include the image.

                You can use a trademark for commercial purposes. You can say, on the cover, "This book is all about Microsoft Windows", and microsoft can't stop you, because it's factual. It's not suggesting the book is endorsed by MS. The key point is whether
          • It seems to me that companies have been using competitors' trademarks in advertising since he dawn of time. Comparison-based advertising is a trend that waxes and wanes periodically.

            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
          • And can you provide a way of doing it for less than $0? Part of the problem is that they've paid to develop a reputation and are now having to compete against themselves. This isn't a case of using the term in reference to the Rosetta Stone software, this is a way of Google profiting off of trademark infringement and piracy.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Toonol ( 1057698 )
              this is a way of Google profiting off of trademark infringement and piracy.

              You're implying it's trademark infringement and piracy, but it's not either. A trademark does not allow the holder to forbid people from using the trademarked word. "Looking for Rosetta Stone? Babel Books is better and cheaper" is completely legal.

              You're criticizing Google for doing a normal and legal business practice, because you don't like it. That's fine; not everything legal is good. But, don't imply that it's a crim

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MikeFM ( 12491 )

            So long as they don't claim to be you then yes they can use your trademark. AdWords doesn't really give you room to claim to be anyone but to just give a short hook phrase. It's incredibly annoying that Google blocks trademarks as much as it does. I frequently can't use the products own name in my ads because it's owner has asked for it to be blocked. It's just stupid. Of course my experience is that many manufacturers shoot themselves in the foot with the policies involving selling online. You can't advert

          • But do competitors have the right to profit using your own trademark? That's more the case in point. It's not that they are doing it better. It's that they are using the name recognition of the Rosetta Software to peddle their own product.

            That's not a problem, and that's as it should be so as to not give someone entrenched in the market an advantage. Trademarks aren't there to protect against the case you're describing. The reason trademark exists is to protect against someone pretending to be you. That is, it should be perfectly fine for Pepsi to say, "if you like Coke, try Pepsi! You'll like it better!" It should be perfectly fine for pepsi to show up in a search for coke, as long as coke also shows up. In fact, it's preferable, beca

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by glebovitz ( 202712 )

          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)

            by Dylan16807 ( 1539195 )
            What makes you say it's redirecting rather than using it as a fair comparison? To quote google:

            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)

            by Kjella ( 173770 )

            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.

            • You're confusing search with ads. No one is arguing about the search results. And in the case of your search, any would be fair, since it would be their trademark that triggered their add being displayed.

          • IMHO, allowing Google to redirect trademark searches to a competitors site is a trademark violation.

            Get back to us when they do that. With a specific example that we can all try.

            You might want to look up "redirect" in a dictionary, just in case you're using it with an entirely different meaning to every educated English speaker on the planet.

          • 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.

            I understand that fully, but I don't see how it is the government's job to restrict free speech to insure the more expensive marketing campaign results in more market success. How is that in the best interests of society? Restrictions on free speech such as trademarks need to demonstrate a real and pressing public interest that overrides the danger of restricting fee speech. Preventing consumers from being misled qualifies. Ensuring that money spent on advertising is effective, not so much.

            Allowing Google to put trademark keywords up for sale enables companies with greater funding to use another's trademarks to sell their own products.

            Yes it does. I do

          • IMHO, allowing Google to redirect trademark searches to a competitors site is a trademark violation

            IMHO, it is not. It seems obvious to me, but I guess our disagreement reflects the disagreement between RS and Google and the RS competitors. Pity it has to end up in court and waste so many resources, but if this thread is a reasonable microcosm, it's clear that there's not overwhelming agreement with one side or the other.

        • 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.

          That is downright Un-American. Here we make money the proper way, by suing someone.

        • and start making your product better and cheaper.

          That's easy. Just outsource to China.

           

        • 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.

          • So file charges on and/or sue the criminals, don't sue the owner of the property that the telephone pole that they stapled their ad to sits on.

            • Right. But if you can go after Google, it might be worth your time. The crooks here are too small of a fish.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Ilgaz ( 86384 )

              So can you go to any newspaper and advertise your con business freely? Just try and see what happens.

              World's number 1 advertising company needs some kind of control don't you think?

              • Re:This is not a free market issue. (Score:5, Insightful)

                by erayd ( 1131355 ) * on Sunday July 12, 2009 @06:47PM (#28670895)

                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.

        • The problem for society in general is that positive feelings for a particular brand that are based on personal experience, word of mouth, or even effective advertising can be corrupted when a competitor misappropriates the brandname or other trademarks. If I am a long-time Google user and expect a high level of quality operation and privacy from them, then if a different company that hides behind Google's trademarks tricks me into using its own services, then I, as the consumer, will be confused and possib

          • If I am a long-time Google user and expect a high level of quality operation and privacy from them, then if a different company that hides behind Google's trademarks tricks me into using its own services, then I, as the consumer, will be confused and possibly frustrated or harmed by this rogue company.

            That's why we have trademarks in general. I don't see how that applies in this case. No one is hiding behind anyone else's trademark or being confused that I can see. If Some other company has ads on the same page as a trademarked name you do a search for are you really confused and tricked into thinking it is for them?

            Obviously, it's also bad for the business that built up its good name and goodwill just to have a competitor snatch away customers by masquerading as the well-known company.

            And it's illegal for one company to masquerade as another. That's not what's happening here though. No one is pretending to be another company, they just want to put ads on the same page as

        • I agree, but most of the world doesn't have it.

      • somewhat ironic choice however (Score:5, Insightful)

        by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:47PM (#28669631)

        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.

      • Even so - this is not google's doing; google can't reasonably be expected to check the legitimacy of each and every advertiser (presumably millions). If there is an issue, wouldn't it would be with the person placing the adwords and not with provider of the advertising service?

  • Since 196BC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nOw2 ( 1531357 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:04PM (#28669327)
    In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.

    • Re:Since 196BC (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:18PM (#28669409) Journal

      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?

      • You probably already know this, but the idea of a trademark is to allow people to distinguish between different companies and products. If I buy Starkist tuna, for example, I want to know that it is really Starkist tuna, which is known to be good; not some generic brand that also mixes flour into their tuna. That would be annoying.

        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)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          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)

        by DriedClexler ( 814907 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:57PM (#28669711)

        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!"

      • 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.

        • The record company has sued [theapplemuseum.com] the computer company....

          I hope we hear from Ptolemy V [britishmuseum.org]'s lawyers soon.

        • The apple thing aside (sibling posts will, no doubt address the poor choice), there's still no reason to allow trademark on a common word. Xerox, Starkist, Kleenex, Charmin, Ubuntu, Microsoft - all "new" words to describe a particular brand. Windows, Apple, Rosetta Stone, Stealth - words with existing definitions and usages which were co-opted and removed from use in a particular industry by corporations with poor imaginations.

          I'm not saying I don't understand the purported limitations of Trademark (though

          • > ...it really does seem foolish to let people and corporations lock up those words just
            > because they couldn't make up something new.

            The point is they are *not* locking up those words. Apple has the exclusive right to use the symbol APPLE to label its computers because it was the first to ever use the word that way. They have no right to restrict any other use of the symbol.

          • Xerox, Starkist, Kleenex, Charmin, Ubuntu, Microsoft - all "new" words to describe a particular brand.

            Actually, Ubuntu [wikipedia.org] is not a made-up word.

    • 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)

      by Brett Johnson ( 649584 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:37PM (#28669541)

      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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        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.

        • While not binary, such a filter does exist.

          This is why you don't see any ads when you search for things like Mapquest, Wikipedia, et al.

          Mapquest has maintained as one of the top searched terms for years, but usually triggers no ads on Google when searched.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            It's not the three text ads at the top that bother me, or the three down the left side. It's the search results that are, for many searches, overwhelmingly commercial. Searching for exactly what you want to find, for example mapquest, doesn't count.

            It's particularly bad when you want to find information on something that is or shares a name with some widely available product. Rosetta Stone is a fairly mild example.

            Actually, trying out some searches to find a good example, it seems Google IS filtering the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by syousef ( 465911 )

      In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.

      More details here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWP-AsG5DRk [youtube.com]

    • In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.

      Namely, Ancient Egypt.

  • Bottom line. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by proslack ( 797189 )
    It would probably be more cost effective for Google to just buy Rosetta Stone and shut it down. Sales are obviously down - but at the prices they charge, that's hardly surprising.

  • Seems they are being very proactive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:19PM (#28669415) Journal
    In a quick google search, 80% of the ads were either put there by Rosetta Stone themselves, or an affiliate of the company. They are still buying all the ad words, they were probably just upset that their cost of advertising went up suddenly when other people wanted those same words. I don't blame them, I would be upset too. Of course that doesn't mean they should get their way......

    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.

  • Rosetta Stone Inc should be ashamed.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rsmits ( 962410 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:41PM (#28669561)
    So, Rosetta Stone Inc wants to sue Google for Trademark Violation. How about the British Museum, which holds the real Rosetta Stone, sues this upstart for using Rosetta Stone as it's trademark? Or the Egyptian government, which certainly has a better claim on the stone, which was looted by the Brits in the 1870's? Given all the confusion that already exists because this translation company has appropriated to itself the name Rosetta Stone, when there also exist the real Rosetta Stone, "The Rosetta Stone of immunology", "Arabidopsis, the Rosetta Stone of flowering time (fossils)", an algorithm for predicting protein structure from sequence is named Rosetta@home, and in molecular biology, a series of "Rosetta" bacterial cell lines have been developed that contain a number of TRNA genes that are rare in E. coli but common in other organisms, enabling the efficient translation of DNA from those organisms in E. coli. "Rosetta" is also an online language translation tool to help localisation of software, developed and maintained by Canonical as part of the Launchpad project, "Rosetta" is the name of a "lightweight dynamic translator" distributed for Mac OS X by Apple that enables applications compiled for a RISC processor (PowerPC) to run on Apple systems using a CISC (x86) processor. The Rosetta Project is a global collaboration of language specialists and native speakers to develop a contemporary version of the historic Rosetta Stone to last from 2000 to 12,000 AD. Its goal is a meaningful survey and near permanent archive of 1,500 languages. As well as being the name of the original Rosetta Stone, the term has come to mean something critical to decryption or translation. Rosetta Stone Inc should be ashamed of themselves...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ral8158 ( 947954 )
      uh, do you understand how trademarks work at all? Because Rosetta Stone Inc. doesn't suddenly have control over the phrase 'Rosetta Stone'. They only have rights with respect to the business of language learning--if someone else tries to deceive a consumer by selling a language learning product while using the name 'Rosetta Stone', they are in violation of trademark law. This is a totally sensible and non-draconian law: Rosetta Stone Inc. spends a lot of money marketing and building their name's reputation,

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • Problem is that trademark doesn't work that way. from everyone's friend [wikipedia.org]: It should be noted that trademark rights generally arise out of the use or to maintain exclusive rights over that sign in relation to certain products or services, assuming there are no other trademark objections.

      It's usually considered to be within a given market, not all uses of the word everywhere. Generally speaking, this means you can open Coke's Auto Body or Rosetta Stone Exterminators, and nobody can say a word. Presumably (

  • The real problem.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Siberwulf ( 921893 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:41PM (#28669567)
    For those who skimmed TFA:

    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)

      by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:53PM (#28669671) Journal
      if by "use to their benefit" you mean reach potential customers, then yes.

      until it is illegal to suggest alternatives or present your product as an alternative this lawsuit is baseless

    • Re:The real problem.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:53PM (#28669673)

      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bigjeff5 ( 1143585 )

      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

    • Google has done this before... searching Google for "Yahoo!" resulted in a "Did you mean Google?" response. It's a practice new to search marketing where you specify your competitor's name to trigger your ad... effectively mounting a sign for yourself on the way to that competitor.

    • This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.

      Are you saying it would be wrong for me to say that my product is twice as effective as Rosetta Stone (tm) at half the cost, in my own advertisements?

      By choosing a name that is already in the lexicon, they have chosen a weak trademark. A strong trademark is something like "Kodak" which Eastman chose because it did not mean anything in any language. If they pursue this too far, they may find that they lose the trademark because there is an actual rosetta stone, and that any company that does translation

    • I'm confused though, as to why Google JUST now started to allow this.

      This has been happening since Adwords started, but they modifying their policy recently maybe from legal advice or as a business move.

      However, I am afraid this change is what opened the door for them to get sued, because now they are openly justifying it. And Google is a much bigger fish than Joe Schmuck buying ads from his home office.

      Rosetta's lawyers know what they are doing.

    • > The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use
      > trademarks to their own benefit.

      Which in the USA is legal as long as the mark is not used in a way that would confuse the public as to what product it is getting. A trademark is not a copyright.

  • Something is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lavene ( 1025400 ) on Sunday July 12, 2009 @03:42PM (#28669581)
    In Norway someone trademarked the name "Ida" and a drawing of the now famous fossil. They sell suitcases. 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...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Quothz ( 683368 )

      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:2)

      by Ilgaz ( 86384 )

      This is something like coming up with a spyware named 'Opra mini' and advertise it whenever users search for Opera Mini.

      Opera browser, is of course a trademark for a product of that Norwegian company but it doesn't mean we can claim they are lunatic to trademark Opera music genre or laugh at them.

  • Seriously, let everyone sue everyone else, so progress can occur and we can all come to a complete standstill. Perhaps then we can rid ourselves of this nonsense once and for all.

  • Step 1: Trademark a common term
    Step 2: Sue google
    Step 3: ????
    Step 4: Profit!

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close