Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.

Decision Date09 April 2012
Docket NumberNo. 10–2007.,10–2007.
PartiesROSETTA STONE LTD, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INCORPORATED, Defendant–Appellee.The UK Intellectual Property Law Society, Amicus Curiae,Eric Goldman; Public Citizen; Martin Schwimmer, Limited Intervenors.International Trademark Association; Blues Destiny Records, LLC; Carfax, Incorporated; Ford Motor Company; Harmon International Industries, Incorporated; The Media Institute; Viacom, Inc.; Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation; Business Software Alliance; Chanel, Incorporated; Coach, Incorporated; Government Employees Insurance Company; Harrah's Entertainment, Incorporated; Longchamp USA, Incorporated; National Football League; Oakley, Incorporated; Professional Golfers' Association of America, Incorporated; Rolls–Royce North America, Incorporated; S.A.S. Jean Cassegrain; Sunkist Growers, Incorporated; Swarovski North America, Ltd.; The Association for Competitive Technology; The Sunrider Corporation; Tivo, Incorporated; Tiffany & Company; Tumi, Incorporated; United Continental Holdings, Incorporated; 1–800 Contacts, Incorporated; ConvaTec, Incorporated; Guru Denim, Incorporated; Monster Cable Products, Incorporated; PetMed Express, Inc.; Volunteers of America, Amici Supporting Appellant,Public Citizen; Public Knowledge; Electronic Frontier Foundation; eBay Incorporated; Yahoo! Incorporated, Amici Supporting Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ARGUED: Clifford M. Sloan, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Margret Mary Caruso, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, California, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mitchell S. Ettinger, Jennifer L. Spaziano, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Cheryl A. Galvin, Henry Lien, Austin D. Tarango, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, California; Jonathan D. Frieden, Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Charles Lee Thomason, Spalding & Thomason, Bardstown, Kentucky, for The UK Intellectual Property Law Society, Amicus Curiae. David H. Bernstein, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, New York; Kurt E. Anderson, Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, PC, Red Bank, New Jersey; A. Justin Ourso, III, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre LLP, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for International Trademark Association, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Marcia B. Paul, Kevan Choset, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, New York, Daniel P. Reing, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, D.C., for Blues Destiny Records, LLC, Carfax, Incorporated, Harmon International Industries, Incorporated, The Media Institute, and Viacom, Inc.; Mark S. Sparschu, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield, Michigan, for Ford Motor Company, Amici Supporting Appellant. Randall K. Miller, Arnold & Porter, McLean, Virginia, Roberta L. Horton, Tricia A. Cross, Brent S. LaBarge, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, D.C., for Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, Business Software Alliance, Chanel, Incorporated, Coach, Incorporated, Government Employees Insurance Company, Harrah's Entertainment, Incorporated, Longchamp USA, Incorporated, National Football League, Oakley, Incorporated, Professional Golfers' Association of America, Incorporated, Rolls–Royce North America, Incorporated, S.A.S. Jean Cassegrain, Sunkist Growers, Incorporated, Swarovski North America, Ltd., The Association for Competitive Technology, The Sunrider Corporation, TiVo, Incorporated, Tiffany & Company, Tumi, Incorporated, and United Continental Holdings, Incorporated, Amici Supporting Appellant. Brad R. Newberg, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church, Virginia, for 1–800 Contacts, Incorporated, ConvaTec, Incorporated, Guru Denim, Incorporated, Monster Cable Products, Incorporated, and PetMed Express, Inc., Amici Supporting Appellant. Thomas G. Southard, Karl Wm. Means, Alan B. Sternstein, Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, PA, Potomac, Maryland, for Volunteers of America, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Paul Alan Levy, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C., for Public Citizen, Amicus Supporting Appellee. Harold Feld, John Bergmayer, Rashmi Rangnath, Public Knowledge, Washington, D.C.; Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, California, for Public Knowledge and Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amici Supporting Appellee. R. Bruce Rich, Jonathan Bloom, Mark J. Fiore, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York, Michael Lyle, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, D.C., for Yahoo! Incorporated and eBay, Incorporated, Amici Supporting Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in which Judge KEENAN and Senior Judge HAMILTON joined.

OPINION

TRAXLER, Chief Judge:

Appellant Rosetta Stone Ltd. appeals from an order, see Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Inc., 730 F.Supp.2d 531 (E.D.Va.2010), granting summary judgment against Rosetta Stone on its claims against Appellee Google Inc. for trademark infringement, see 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a); contributory and vicarious trademark infringement; and trademark dilution, see 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). Rosetta Stone also appeals from an order dismissing its unjust enrichment claim under Virginia Law. See Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Inc., 732 F.Supp.2d 628 (E.D.Va.2010). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court's order with respect to the vicarious infringement and unjust enrichment claims; however, we vacate the district court's order with respect to the direct infringement, contributory infringement and dilution claims and remand these claims for further proceedings.

I. Background

In conducting a de novo review of the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Google, we view the facts and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to [Rosetta Stone], as the nonmoving party.” Georgia Pac. Consumer Prods., LP v. Von Drehle Corp., 618 F.3d 441, 445 (4th Cir.2010). Bearing this standard in mind, we review the underlying facts briefly.

Rosetta Stone began in 1992 as a small, family-owned business that marketed its language-learning software under the brand name Rosetta Stone.” 1 By 2006, Rosetta Stone had become an industry leader in technology-based language-learning products and online services, and, by January 2010, it had become a publicly traded corporation with 1,738 employees and gross revenues of approximately $252 million. Its products consist of “software, online services and audio practice tools” available in over thirty languages. J.A. 203.

Rosetta Stone owns and uses several registered marks in connection with its products and services: ROSETTA STONE, ROSETTA STONE LANGUAGE LEARNING SUCCESS, ROSETTASTONE.COM, and ROSETTA WORLD. Using this family of registered marks, Rosetta Stone markets its brand through various types of media, including the Internet, television, radio, magazines and other print media, and kiosks in public venues. From 2003 through 2009, Rosetta Stone spent approximately $57 million for television and radio advertising, $40 million for print media marketing, and $12.5 million to advertise on the Internet. In 2009, Rosetta Stone's marks enjoyed the highest level of brand recognition by far in the domestic language-learning market.2 Rosetta Stone has achieved international success as well, with its products in use in over 150 countries.

Rosetta Stone began advertising in connection with Google's website and online services in 2002 and has continued to do so since that time. Google operates one of the world's most popular Internet search engines—programs that enable individuals to find websites and online content, generally through the use of a “keyword” search. See Retail Servs., Inc. v. Freebies Publ'g, 364 F.3d 535, 541 n. 1 (4th Cir.2004). When an Internet user enters a word or phrase—the keyword or keywords—into Google's search engine, Google returns a results list of links to websites that the search engine has determined to be relevant based on a proprietary algorithm.

In addition to the natural list of results produced by the keyword search, Google's search engine also displays paid advertisements known as “Sponsored Links” with the natural results of an Internet search. Google's AdWords advertising platform permits a sponsor to “purchase” keywords that trigger the appearance of the sponsor's advertisement and link when the keyword is entered as a search term. In other words, an advertiser purchases the right to have his ad and accompanying link displayed with the search results for a keyword or combination of words relevant to the advertiser's business. Most sponsors advertising with Google pay on a “cost-per-click” basis, meaning that the advertiser pays whenever a user of Google's search engine clicks on the sponsored link.

Google displays up to three sponsored links in a highlighted box immediately above the natural search results, and it also displays sponsored links to the right of the search results, but separated by a vertical line. As this suggests, more than one sponsor can purchase the same keyword and have a link displayed when a search for that keyword is conducted. Would-be advertisers purchase their desired keywords through an auction where advertisers bid competitively against each other for page position on the search results page. Generally speaking, users of the Internet are apparently more likely to click on ads that appear higher up on the search results page. Accordingly, an advertiser will try to outbid its competitors for the top positions in order to maximize the number of clicks on the advertiser's text ads. For the advertiser, more clicks yield increased web traffic, which means more potential website sales. Google, in turn, benefits by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
222 cases
  • Kun v. Shuman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • 16 Junio 2015
    ...of goods or services; and (4)that the defendant's use of the mark is likely to confuse consumers." Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 152 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1114V. see also Harrell v. Colonial Holdings, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 813, 820 (E.D. Va. 2013). The cour......
  • Sky Cable, LLC v. Coley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • 11 Julio 2013
    ...to repaythe plaintiff; and 3) the defendant accepted or retained the benefit without paying for its value. Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Schmidt v. Household Fin. Corp., 276 Va. 108, 116, 661 S.E.2d 834, 838 (2008)). Again, there is no evid......
  • JFJ Toys, Inc. v. Sears Holdings Corp., Civil Action No. PX–14–3527
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 21 Febrero 2017
    ...& Co. , 575 F.3d at 398 ("Actual confusion can be demonstrated by both anecdotal and survey evidence."); cf. Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc. , 676 F.3d 144, 156 (4th Cir. 2012) ("Both [anecdotal and survey] evidence are relevant, and neither category is necessarily required to prove actu......
  • Chamberlain v. Securian Fin. Grp., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • 19 Febrero 2016
    ...Toxaway Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. RYF Enterprises, LLC, 226 N.C.App. 483, 742 S.E.2d 555, 561 (2013). See also Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 165–66 (4th Cir.2012) (“A plaintiff asserting unjust enrichment must demonstrate the following three elements: (1) he conferred a benef......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • And The Winner Is? Digital Platform Liability For Trademark Infringement
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 3 Octubre 2015
    ...Platform liability was also at the heart of the flurry of keyword cases over the past decade, culminating in Rosetta Stone v. Google, 676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012). In that case, the district court had ruled that summary judgment for Google was proper on direct and contributory infringement ......
3 books & journal articles
  • The Public Policy Argument Against Trademark Licensee Estoppel and Naked Licensing.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 85 No. 4, September 2020
    • 22 Septiembre 2020
    ...U.S. 844, 853-54 (1982). (73.) See Tiffany (NJ) Inc. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93, 110 n.15 (2d Cir. 2010); Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 164 (4th Cir. 2012); Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp., 995 F.2d at 1150; RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION [section] 27 (AM. L. INST.......
  • Branding in Puerto Rico through the Lens of the Coffee Industry
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 14-3, March 2022
    • 1 Marzo 2022
    ...Consortium, Inc. v. Sec. Univ., LLC, 823 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2016).37. Id. at 165.38. Id. at 168.39. Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 154 (4th Cir. 2012).40. Id. at 155.41. Paccar Inc. v. Telescan Techs., L.L.C., 319 F.3d 243, 256 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting that “[e]ven if we we......
  • Nominative Trademark Use: Affirmative or Negative Defense to Infringement?
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 14-3, March 2022
    • 1 Marzo 2022
    ...Consortium, Inc. v. Sec. Univ., LLC, 823 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2016).37. Id. at 165.38. Id. at 168.39. Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 154 (4th Cir. 2012).40. Id. at 155.41. Paccar Inc. v. Telescan Techs., L.L.C., 319 F.3d 243, 256 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting that “[e]ven if we we......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT