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

Computer Law Commons

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

Policy change

Articles 1 - 11 of 11

Full-Text Articles in Computer Law

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. N - Lloyd Deposition (Google Ad Support Team Lead), Bill Lloyd Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. N - Lloyd Deposition (Google Ad Support Team Lead), Bill Lloyd

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. K - Hagan Deposition (Former Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks, Jewelry Maker), Rose Hagan Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. K - 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. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 30 - Deposition Of Rose Hagan (Former Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks, Jewelry Maker), Rose Hagan Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 30 - Deposition Of Rose Hagan (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. 55 - Chen Deposition (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen Feb 2010

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 55 - Chen Deposition (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. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. C - Chen Deposition (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen Feb 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. C - Chen Deposition (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. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. 18 - Email From Baris Gultekin And Trademark Report (Google Product Manager Director), Baris Gultekin Sep 2009

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. 18 - Email From Baris Gultekin And Trademark Report (Google Product Manager Director), Baris Gultekin

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. 17 - Email From Baris Gultekin (Google Product Manager Director), Baris Gultekin May 2009

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. 17 - Email From Baris Gultekin (Google Product Manager Director), Baris Gultekin

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 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?


Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. I - Hagan Deposition From Geico (Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks), Rose Hagan Sep 2004

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. I - Hagan Deposition From Geico (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?