Breaking News: Google win in Rosetta Stone Adwords case

Google's motion for summary judgment was granted by US District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the Eastern District of Virginia (4th Circuit) in the trade mark infringement and AdWords litigation brought against them by Rosetta Stone. This marks the latest of three cases (Geico v Google and Rescuecom v Google) to have gone before a judge in the U.S., but again without a full trial on the issue of likelihood of confusion in an AdWords case. Tom Adams, CEO of Rosetta Stone stated:
“This is a setback for us in our effort to right a wrong, To not allow a case like this to go before a jury is very disappointing for us.”
In 2009 Rosetta Stone, a provider of foreign language educational materials, commenced proceedings against Google in relation to Google's use of their trade mark name as part of Google's AdWords program (see previous AmeriKat reports here). Rosetta Stone alleged that Google "used" the marks under the Lanham Act by selling the words to third-parties and that use created a likelihood of confusion by directing users to Rosetta's competitors.

Judge Lee has yet to issue his formal decision. As soon as he does, Rosetta Stone will reportedly consider whether or not to appeal.

The AmeriKat will bring news and comment on Judge Lee's decision as soon as she can get her tabby paws on it.
In the meantime you can watch what the IPKat's AdWords panel had to say about the Court of Justice ruling in the Google AdWords case and the US AdWords position here.

It has to be said - its been a good couple of days for Google!
Breaking News: Google win in Rosetta Stone Adwords case Breaking News:  Google win in Rosetta Stone Adwords case Reviewed by Annsley Merelle Ward on Friday, April 30, 2010 Rating: 5


  1. is judge lee's decision out?

  2. Yup, it came out a couple of weeks ago. Nothing surprising. Basically - evidence of confusion was de minimus and the evidence on intent on behalf of Google was unconvincing.

    To see the opinion click this link -

    Also look, here for more info:


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.