Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Intellectual Property Law

PDF

Series

2006

Google

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. J - Hagan Deposition From Cng (Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks), Rose Hagan Nov 2006

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. J - Hagan Deposition From Cng (Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks), Rose Hagan

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Go to article

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. 21 - Email From Lena Huang (Rosetta Online Marketing), Lena Huang Sep 2006

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. 21 - Email From Lena Huang (Rosetta Online Marketing), Lena Huang

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Go to article

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 8 - Email From Emily White, Emily White Mar 2006

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 8 - Email From Emily White, Emily White

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Go to article

Rankings, Reductionism, And Responsibility, Frank Pasquale Jan 2006

Rankings, Reductionism, And Responsibility, Frank Pasquale

Faculty Scholarship

After discussing how search engines operate, and sketching a normative basis for regulation of the rankings they generate, this piece proposes some minor, non-intrusive legal remedies for those who claim that they are harmed by search engine results. Such harms include unwanted (but high-ranking) results relating to them, or exclusion from high-ranking results they claim they are due to appear on. In the first case (deemed inclusion harm), I propose a right not to suppress the results, but merely to add an asterisk to the hyperlink directing web users to them, which would lead to the complainant's own comment on …

Go to article