Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

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?

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?

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 32 - Language Learning In The United States Of America, 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. 30 - Email From Nino Ninov, Nino Ninov

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. 31 - Survey Of Rosetta Stone Brand Health, 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. 24 - Fax From Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company

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. 12 - Email From Adwords Support - "Your Google Adwords Approval Status", 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?

The Terminator As Eraser: How Arnold Schwarzenegger Used The Right Of Publicity To Terminate Non-Defamatory Political Speech, David Welkowitz, Tyler Ochoa

Faculty Publications

INTRODUCTION

While it is no longer unusual for a politician to have been a recent celebrity in the commercial world of entertainment, the Schwarzenegger bobblehead case is one of the rare cases in which a politician has filed a lawsuit asserting a right of publicity claim. However, the Schwarzenegger case and its settlement exposed some basic flaws in the analysis of celebrity rights problems, flaws that are not unique to its political context. Two of those flaws converged in this case and are the main subjects of this article. First, rights of publicity claims frequently are used as a "stealth" …

The Schwarzenegger Bobblehead Case: Introduction And Statement Of Facts, Tyler T. Ochoa

Faculty Publications

In May 2004, news media around the world buzzed after learning that Arnold Schwarzenegger, movie-star-turned Governor of California, had filed a lawsuit against an Ohio manufacturer of bobblehead dolls bearing his name and likeness. The case presented a seemingly stark choice between the right of a celebrity-politician to protect his image against commercial appropriation and the First Amendment rights of the public to lampoon that image, and commentators hoped that the case would set a precedent regarding how those rights should be balanced. Just three months later, however, before any court ruling had been made, the parties announced that they …

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 58 - Deposition Of Rose Hagan From Geico V. Google (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

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 - Ex. 1 - Email From Lepe Bismarck, Lepe Bismarck

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 6 - Google Three Ad Policy Changes, 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?

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 40 - Document Tmprocess.Txt Trademark Meeting 3/4, 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?

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 30 - Document Google Trademark Policy Task Force, 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?

Vol. Xxiii, Tab 60 - Ex. 7 - Email From Prashant Fuloria (Google Product Management Director), Prashant Fuloria

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. 38 - Email From Prashant Fuloria (Google Product Management Director), Prashant Fuloria

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?

Copyright, Derivative Works And Fixation: Is Galoob A Mirage, Or Does The Form (Gen) Of The Alleged Derivative Work Matter?, Tyler T. Ochoa

Faculty Publications

The Copyright Act gives a copyright owner the exclusive right "to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work." Does the Copyright Act require that a derivative work be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" in order to be infringing? Existing case law is contradictory, stating both that a derivative work does not need to be "fixed" but that it does need to be embodied in some "concrete or permanent form." This contradiction stems from the fact that although the statutory language does not appear to require fixation, reading the statutory language literally would render illegal merely imagining a …

1984 And Beyond: Two Decades Of Copyright Law, Tyler T. Ochoa

Faculty Publications

During the past two decades, engineers, authors, publishers, consumers, lawyers and academics have witnessed extraordinary developments in the technological landscape, often leading to equally dramatic developments in the law of copyright. Many of these developments have been chronicled (or foreshadowed) in the pages of the Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal. To celebrate the Journal's 20th Anniversary, this essay will place a number of articles which have appeared in the Journal in their historical context by taking a look back on how the law of copyright has changed during the past twenty years.

Cheap Drugs At What Price To Innovation: Does The Compulsory Licensing Of Pharmaceuticals Hurt Innovaton?, Colleen V. Chien

Faculty Publications

The patent system is built on the premise that patents provide an incentive for innovation by offering a limited monopoly to patentees. The inverse assumption that removing patent protection will hurt innovation has largely prevented the widespread use of compulsory licensing-the practice of allowing third parties to use patented inventions without patentee permission. In this Article, I empirically test this assumption. I compare rates of patenting and other measures of inventive activity before and after six compulsory licenses over drug patents issued in the 1980s and 1990s. As reported below, observe no uniform decline in innovation by companies affected by …

The Anti-Monopoly Origins Of The Patent And Copyright Clause, Tyler T. Ochoa, Mark Rose

Faculty Publications

The British experience with patents and copyrights prior to 1787 is instructive as to the context within which the Framers drafted the Patent and Copyright Clause. The 1624 Statute of Monopolies, intended to curb royal abuse of monopoly privileges, restricted patents for new inventions to a specified term of years. The Stationers' Company, a Crown-chartered guild of London booksellers, continued to hold a monopoly on publishing, and to enforce censorship laws, until 1695. During this time, individual titles were treated as perpetual properties held by booksellers. In 1710, however, the Statute of Anne broke up these monopolies by imposing strict …

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. 5 - Google Advertising Policy Review, 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?

Origins And Meanings Of The Public Domain, Tyler T. Ochoa

Faculty Publications

This article surveys the history and development of the public domain in intellectual property law. The public domain has existed since time immemorial, and was first recognized in the Statute of Monopolies and the Statute of Anne, which placed time limits on patents and copyrights, after which the invention or work could be copied freely by anyone. The concept was enshrined in the U.S.Constitution and reflected in American patent and copyright laws. Before 1896, courts referred to matter not protected by patent or copyright law as "public property" or "common property. " In 1896,the U.S. Supreme Court imported the term …

Does Technology Require New Law?, David D. Friedman

Faculty Publications

Technological change affects the law in at least three ways: (1) by altering the cost of violating and enforcing existing legal rules; (2) by altering the underlying facts that justify legal rules; and (3) by changing the underlying facts implicitly assumed by the law, making existing legal concepts and categories obsolete, even meaningless. The legal system can choose to ignore such changes. Alternatively, it may selectively alter its rules legislatively or via judicial interpretation. In this essay I first discuss, as an interesting historical example, past technological changes relevant to copyright law and the law's response. I then go on …

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 1 - Document "Our Collar - Rosetta Stone New Brand", Dawn Mcavoy

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?

Understanding Internet Co-Branding Deals, Eric Goldman, Candice Lee

Faculty Publications

The Internet has spawned new business practices regarding the ways users access and obtain information and services. Because linking can create a network of web pages that appear integrated and seamless to users, many Internet companies enter what are known as co-branding relationships. This article addresses a common type of co-branding relationship in which a "provider" maintains a set of pages ("the co-branded site") that looks and feels like the "brander's" web site. The co-branded site is promoted on the brander's web site through linking.

Introduction: Tiger Woods And The First Amendment, Tyler T. Ochoa

Faculty Publications

Although the right of publicity has been recognized as a distinct common-law doctrine since 1953, only in recent years have courts begun to take the First Amendment seriously as a limit on the extent to which sports figures and other celebrities can use the doctrine to control the use of their images. It is widely recognized that the government may prohibit false and misleading speech, such as an advertisement that falsely implies an endorsement of a product by an individual, without violating the First Amendment. Similarly, it is generally acknowledged that the First Amendment protects the depiction of celebrities in …

Report On Copyright Implications Of Digital Audio Transmission Services, Register Of Copyrights

Legal Monographs and Treatises

No abstract provided.