Legal News

Appeals Court Revives Rosetta Stone’s Case against Google
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

On Monday, a federal appeals court revived the major portion of Rosetta Stone Inc’s trademark infringement lawsuit against Google Inc. The lawsuit and its ultimate decision can have far ranging implications as the case revolves around Google’s sale of adwords containing the trademarked name of Rosetta Stone. If the claims of Rosetta are found to be justified, then it can open a floodgate of actions against Google considering it has been its long practice to sell keywords with a combination trademarked by other companies.

While in 2010, a Virginia district court had dismissed the case holding that the sale of keywords was not likely to confuse consumers and trademark infringement did not apply, on Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit overturned much of the dismissal and revived the claims that Google was committing direct trademark infringement by diluting the Rosetta Stone brand.

The court mentioned “A reasonable trier of fact could find that Google intended to cause confusion in that it acted with the knowledge that confusion was very likely to result from its use of the marks.”


Rosetta Stone claims that Google profited by allowing the rivals of Rosetta Stone to purchase trademarked keywords that generated links to rival sites when used for internet search. By allowing advertisers to by “sponsored links” on the search results page, Google ensured that people searching for “Rosetta Stone” ended up being redirected to competitors.

The language-software maker presented the depositions and testimonies of five consumers who attempted to buy bogus Rosetta Stone software after Google started allowing the use of trademarks in the text of sponsored links.

The three judge panel of the 4th Circuit Appeals Court also cited an internal Google study that found even sophisticated consumers were sometimes unaware that sponsored links were advertisements.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!

The appeals court also reinstated the trademark dilution claims against Google and directed the lower court to reconsider when Google first started its alleged dilution, and whether the trademark of “Rosetta Stone” Inc was famous at that time.

If that is the case, then the scene is getting vicious against Google indeed, for Google started the practice of selling keyword combinations of trademarks owned by other companies in 2009, and at that time, indisputably, Rosetta Stone was already known as one of the world’s leading language-software developers.

The case is Rosetta Stone Ltd v. Google Inc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, No. 10-2007.


Interesting Legal Sites You May Like




Search Now

Mid-level Computer Science Associate Attorney


Washington, D.C. office of our client seeks mid-level computer science associate attorney with 2-5 y...

Apply Now

Health Care Associate Attorney


Cleveland office of our client seeks health care associate attorney with 3-5 years of experience in ...

Apply Now

Tax Associate Attorney

USA-NY-New York City

New York City office of our client seeks tax associate attorney with 3-4 years of experience. The id...

Apply Now


Legal Department Manager


Acclaim Credit Technologies is seeking full time individual for our legal department. Job requiremen...

Apply now

Workers' Rights Coordinator Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

La Raza Centro Legal Workers\' Rights Coordinating Attorney   JOB ANNOUNCEMENT Posi...

Apply now

Senior Law Coordinator Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

SENIOR LAW COORDINATING ATTORNEY La Raza Centro Legal is currently accepting applications for a c...

Apply now

Immigration Law Coordinator Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

Immigration Program Coordinating Attorney The Immigration Program Coordinating Attorney at La Raz...

Apply now


To Top