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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 30 of 116

Full-Text Articles in Law

Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Response To Google's Objections To Evidence And Motion To Strike, Jennifer Spaziano Apr 2010

Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Response To Google's Objections To Evidence And Motion To Strike, Jennifer Spaziano

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 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Motion For Sanctions, Jennifer Spaziano Apr 2010

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Motion For Sanctions, Jennifer Spaziano

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. Xv, Tab 52 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability, Rosetta Stone Apr 2010

Vol. Xv, Tab 52 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability, 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. Xvi, Tab 53 - Declaration Of Henry Lien In Support Of Google's Reply Memorandum (Counsel For Google), Henry Lien Apr 2010

Vol. Xvi, Tab 53 - Declaration Of Henry Lien In Support Of Google's Reply Memorandum (Counsel For Google), Henry Lien

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. Xix, Tab 56 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability, Rosetta Stone Apr 2010

Vol. Xix, Tab 56 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability, 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 46 - Spaziano Declaration In Opposition To Google's Motion, Jennifer Spaziano Apr 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Spaziano Declaration In Opposition To Google's Motion, Jennifer Spaziano

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 - Declaration Of Henry Lien (Counsel For Google), Henry Lien Apr 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Declaration Of Henry Lien (Counsel For Google), Henry Lien

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. Xi, Tab 48 - Declaration Of Kris Brewer (Associate Discovery Counsel For Google), Kris Brewer Apr 2010

Vol. Xi, Tab 48 - Declaration Of Kris Brewer (Associate Discovery Counsel For Google), Kris Brewer

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. Viii, Tab 39 - Bill Lloyd Declaration (Google Ad Support Team Lead), Bill Lloyd Mar 2010

Vol. Viii, Tab 39 - Bill Lloyd Declaration (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 42 - Declaration Of Cheryl Galvin, Cheryl Galvin Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 42 - Declaration Of Cheryl Galvin, Cheryl Galvin

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. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 76 - Wojcicki Deposition (Google Vice-President Product Management), Susan Wojcicki Mar 2010

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 76 - Wojcicki Deposition (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 41 - Ex. R - Wojcicki Deposition (Google Vice-President Product Management), Susan Wojcicki Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. R - Wojcicki Deposition (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 46 - Ex. 36 - Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Responses To Google's First Set Of Interrogatories, Rosetta Stone Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 36 - Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Responses To Google's First Set Of Interrogatories, 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 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. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 51 - Adams Deposition (Rosetta Stone Ceo), Tom Adams Mar 2010

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 51 - Adams Deposition (Rosetta Stone Ceo), Tom Adams

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. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 74 - Thomas Deposition (Rosetta Counterfeit Software Customer), Diana Thomas Mar 2010

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 74 - Thomas Deposition (Rosetta Counterfeit Software Customer), Diana Thomas

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. A - Alferness Deposition (Google Ad Products Senior Product Manager), Jonathan Alferness Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. A - Alferness Deposition (Google Ad Products Senior Product Manager), Jonathan Alferness

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. 23 - Deposition Of Jonathan Alferness (Google Adwords Product Manager), Jonathan Alferness Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 23 - Deposition Of Jonathan Alferness (Google Adwords Product Manager), Jonathan Alferness

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. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 73 - Tabatabai Deposition (Rosetta Online Marketing Specialist), Nicole Tabatabai Mar 2010

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 73 - Tabatabai Deposition (Rosetta Online Marketing Specialist), Nicole Tabatabai

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. 28 - Rosetta Stone Unjust Enrichment Calculations, Rosetta Stone Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. 28 - Rosetta Stone Unjust Enrichment Calculations, 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. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 67 - Lloyd Deposition (Google Trademark Assistant), Bill Lloyd Mar 2010

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 67 - Lloyd Deposition (Google Trademark Assistant), Bill Lloyd

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

No abstract provided.


Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 70 - Novaczyk Deposition (Rosetta Consumer Marketing Analytics), Thomas Novaczyk Mar 2010

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 70 - Novaczyk Deposition (Rosetta Consumer Marketing Analytics), Thomas Novaczyk

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. 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 47 - Ex. 32 - Deposition Of Bill Lloyd (Google Ad Support Team), Bill Lloyd Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 32 - Deposition Of Bill Lloyd (Google Ad Support Team), 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. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 58 - Duehring Deposition (Rosetta Stone Vp Of Consumer Marketing), Eric M. Duehring Mar 2010

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 58 - Duehring Deposition (Rosetta Stone Vp Of Consumer Marketing), Eric M. Duehring

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. 65 - Klipple Deposition (Rosetta Marketing Manager), Christopher Klipple Mar 2010

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 65 - Klipple Deposition (Rosetta Marketing Manager), 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. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 53 - Calhoun Deposition (Rosetta Enforcement Manager), Jason Calhoun Mar 2010

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 53 - Calhoun Deposition (Rosetta Enforcement Manager), Jason Calhoun

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. 54 - Deposition Of Eric Duehring (Rosetta Stone Vice President Of Consumer Marketing), Eric Duehring Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 54 - Deposition Of Eric Duehring (Rosetta Stone Vice President Of Consumer Marketing), Eric Duehring

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. 35 - Deposition Of Jason Calhoun (Rosetta Stone Enforcement Manager), Jason Calhoun Mar 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 35 - Deposition Of Jason Calhoun (Rosetta Stone Enforcement Manager), Jason Calhoun

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. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 77 - Wu Deposition (Rosetta Stone General Counsel), Michael Wu Mar 2010

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 77 - Wu Deposition (Rosetta Stone General Counsel), 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?