trademarks and the world wide web im 350: intellectual property law and new media spring, 2015

Trademarks and the World Wide Web

IM 350: Intellectual Property Law and New MediaSpring, 2015

What is a trademark?

• Source identifier

How do we determine priority of trademark rights?

• Use in commerce• First in time, first in right

What makes a trademark valuable?

• Commands the attention of consumer• Easy to remember• Shorthand way to communicate

What interests does trademark law protect?

• Trademark owners against free riders• The public interest– Prevention from “confusion”

What types of “confusion” exist

• Product• Source • Sponsorship

How does the law categorize confusion?

• Classic confusion• Reverse confusion • Initial interest confusion

Trademark issues on the Internet

• Domain squatters– www.cocacola.com– Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

• Metatags– Is it possible to confuse a machine?

• AdWords – Can Google sell my trademark as an AdWord?

• Jurisdiction– Where can an infringer be sued?

Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, (4th Cir. 2012)

• RS markets language-learning software under “Rosetta Stone”

• RS owns and uses several marks:– ROSETTA STONE, – ROSETTA STONE LANGUAGE LEARNING SUCCESS,– ROSETTASTONE.COM, and – ROSETTA WORLD

• RS began advertising with Google in 2002

Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, (4th Cir. 2012)

• Google offers natural search results and sponsored links

• AdWords – sponsors can purchase keywords to trigger appearance of sponsor’s ad

• Sponsor’s pay Google on “cost-per-click” basis• The higher the ad, the higher the click rate.

Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, (4th Cir. 2012)

• Google permits use of TM in ads when sponsor:– is reseller of tm’d product– Makes or sells components for tm’d product– Offers compatible parts or goods for use with tm’d

product– Provides information or reviews about tm’d

product

Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, (4th Cir. 2012)

• RS says Google policy creates likelihood and actual confusion– Within 6-month period, RS reports 190 instances

to Google in which one of the sponsored links was marketing counterfeit RS products

• RS sues Google for direct, contributory, and vicarious tm infringement, dilution and unjust enrichment

Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, (4th Cir. 2012)

• District Court grants summary judgment on all tm claims and dismisses unjust enrichment

• Appellate Court reverses in part and finds issues of fact on:– Whether Google intended to cause confusion– Whether there was actual confusion– Functionality doctrine did not apply– Contributory infringement– Dilution

Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, (4th Cir. 2012)

• So what happened to the case after the appeal?

New Top Level Domain System

• Old regime– .com, .net, .org– $30

• New regime– .Nike, .Apple., bicycle– $185,000