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

Computer Law Commons

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

Series

2010

Trademarked terms

Discipline

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Computer Law

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 34 - Deposition Of Susan Wojcicki (Google Vice President - Product Management), Susan Wojcicki Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 34 - Deposition Of Susan Wojcicki (Google Vice President - Product Management), Susan Wojcicki

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?


Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 31 - Deposition Of Richard Holden (Google Project Manager Director), Richard Holden Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 31 - Deposition Of Richard Holden (Google Project Manager Director), Richard Holden

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?


Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 27 - Deposition Of Eric Eichmann (Rosetta Stone Chief Operating Officer), Eric Eichmann Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 27 - Deposition Of Eric Eichmann (Rosetta Stone Chief Operating Officer), Eric Eichmann

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?


Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 28 - Deposition Of April Garvey (Marketing Consultant For Rosetta Stone), April Garvey Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 28 - Deposition Of April Garvey (Marketing Consultant For Rosetta Stone), April Garvey

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?


Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 68 - Deposition Of John Ramsey (Rosetta Stone Corporate Counsel), John Ramsey Feb 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 68 - Deposition Of John Ramsey (Rosetta Stone Corporate Counsel), John Ramsey

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?


Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 25 - Deposition Of Terri Chen (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen Feb 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 25 - Deposition Of Terri Chen (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen

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?


Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Ex. 2 - Rosetta Stone's First Request For The Production Of Documents From Google, Rosetta Stone Jan 2010

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Ex. 2 - Rosetta Stone's First Request For The Production Of Documents From Google, Rosetta Stone

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?