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

Computer Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 16 of 16

Full-Text Articles in Computer Law

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 24 - Email From Christopher Klipple, Christopher Klipple Dec 2008

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 24 - Email From Christopher Klipple, Christopher Klipple

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. 29 - Email From Christina Aguilar (Google Account Strategist), Christina Aguilar Oct 2008

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 29 - Email From Christina Aguilar (Google Account Strategist), Christina Aguilar

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. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 23 - Email From Christopher Klipple, Christopher Klipple Oct 2008

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 23 - Email From Christopher Klipple, Christopher Klipple

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. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 21 - Email From Christina Aguilar, Christina Aguilar Sep 2008

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 21 - Email From Christina Aguilar, Christina Aguilar

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. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 39 - Email From Michael Wu, Michael Wu Jul 2008

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 39 - Email From Michael Wu, Michael Wu

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. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 38 - Email From Michael Wu, Michael Wu Jun 2008

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 38 - Email From Michael Wu, Michael Wu

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. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 37 - Email From Michael Wu, Michael Wu Jun 2008

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 37 - Email From Michael Wu, Michael Wu

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 41 - Ex 23 - Email From John Ramsey (Rosetta Stone Corporate Counsel), John Ramsey Apr 2008

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex 23 - Email From 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 46 - Ex. 31 - Email From John Ramsey (Rosetta Corporate Counsel), John Ramsey Apr 2008

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 31 - Email From John Ramsey (Rosetta 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. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 62 - Hagan Deposition (Former Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks, Jewelry Maker), Rose Hagan Mar 2008

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 62 - Hagan Deposition (Former Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks, Jewelry Maker), 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?


Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 64 - Holden Deposition (Google Pm Director), Richard T. Holden Mar 2008

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 64 - Holden Deposition (Google Pm Director), Richard T. 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 46 - Ex. 18 - Email From Gina Reinhold (Adwords Associate), Gina Reinhold Mar 2008

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 18 - Email From Gina Reinhold (Adwords Associate), Gina Reinhold

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. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 36 - Email From Michael Wu, Michael Wu Feb 2008

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 36 - Email From Michael Wu, Michael Wu

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. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 35 - Rosetta Stone Dtc (Direct To Consumer) Report 2008, Rosetta Stone Jan 2008

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 35 - Rosetta Stone Dtc (Direct To Consumer) Report 2008, 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?


Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 34 - Rosetta Stone Competitive Analysis, Rosetta Stone Jan 2008

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 34 - Rosetta Stone Competitive Analysis, 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?


Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. 4 - Google Ad Partners All-Hands Q1 2008, Google Jan 2008

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. 4 - Google Ad Partners All-Hands Q1 2008, Google

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?