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

Intellectual Property Law Commons™

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

Google

Discipline
Institution
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 91 - 120 of 165

Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law

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?

Go to article

Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 3 - Deposition Of Terri Chen (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen Feb 2010

Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 3 - 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?

Go to article

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 63 - Deposition Of Van Leigh (Rosetta Stone Director Of Online Marketing), Van Leigh Feb 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 63 - Deposition Of Van Leigh (Rosetta Stone Director Of Online Marketing), Van Leigh

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?

Go to article

Vol. Xxiv, Tab 61 - Ex. 4 - Deposition Of Van Leigh (Rosetta Director Of Online Marketing), Van Leigh Feb 2010

Vol. Xxiv, Tab 61 - Ex. 4 - Deposition Of Van Leigh (Rosetta Director Of Online Marketing), Van Leigh

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?

Go to article

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 52 - Alferness Deposition (Google Ad Products Sr. Pm), Jonathan Alferness Feb 2010

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 52 - Alferness Deposition (Google Ad Products Sr. Pm), 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?

Go to article

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Ex. 1 - Transcript Of Motions Hearing, United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia Feb 2010

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Ex. 1 - Transcript Of Motions Hearing, United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia

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?

Go to article

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 30 - Email From Bill Lloyd (Google Trademark Assistant), Bill Lloyd Feb 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 30 - Email From Bill Lloyd (Google Trademark Assistant), 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?

Go to article

Vol. Viii, Tab 39 - Ex. 3 - Google's Trademark Complaint Policy, Google Jan 2010

Vol. Viii, Tab 39 - Ex. 3 - Google's Trademark Complaint Policy, 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?

Go to article

Settling For Less? An Analysis Of The Possibility Of Positive Legal Precedent On The Internet If The Google Book Search Litigation Had Not Reached A Settlement, Brooke Ericson Jan 2010

Settling For Less? An Analysis Of The Possibility Of Positive Legal Precedent On The Internet If The Google Book Search Litigation Had Not Reached A Settlement, Brooke Ericson

Intellectual Property Brief

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Digital “Library” Htmlcomics Shut Down By Fbi, Doj And Publishers, Mark Tratos Jan 2010

Digital “Library” Htmlcomics Shut Down By Fbi, Doj And Publishers, Mark Tratos

Intellectual Property Brief

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Declaration Of Margret M. Caruso, Margret M. Caruso Jan 2010

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Declaration Of Margret M. Caruso, Margret M. Caruso

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?

Go to article

Vol. Xvii, Tab 54 - Google's Reply Motion In Further Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment, Google Jan 2010

Vol. Xvii, Tab 54 - Google's Reply Motion In Further Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment, 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?

Go to article

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?

Go to article

Vol. Xviii, Tab 55 - Google's Reply Memorandum Of Law In Further Support Of Its Motion To Exclude The Expert Report And Opinion Of Dr. Kent Van Liere, Google Jan 2010

Vol. Xviii, Tab 55 - Google's Reply Memorandum Of Law In Further Support Of Its Motion To Exclude The Expert Report And Opinion Of Dr. Kent Van Liere, 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?

Go to article

Media-Rich Input Application Liability, David R. Krohn, Pekarek Jan 2010

Media-Rich Input Application Liability, David R. Krohn, Pekarek

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Until recently, media-rich online interactions were mostly unidirectional: multimedia content was delivered by the service provider to the user. Input from the user came almost exclusively in the form of text. Even when searching the Internet for images or audio, a user typically entered text into a search engine. In addition, search engines indexed multimedia content by analyzing not the content itself but the text surrounding it. This is rapidly changing. With the rise of multimedia-capable smartphones and wireless broadband, applications that allow users to search using non-textual inputs are quickly becoming popular. These applications go much further than simply …

Go to article

Settling For Less? An Analysis Of The Possibility Of Positive Legal Precedent On The Internet If The Google Book Search Litigation Had Not Reached A Settlement, Brooke Ericson Jan 2010

Settling For Less? An Analysis Of The Possibility Of Positive Legal Precedent On The Internet If The Google Book Search Litigation Had Not Reached A Settlement, Brooke Ericson

Intellectual Property Brief

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Digital + Library: Mass Book Digitization As Collective Inquiry, Mary Murrell Jan 2010

Digital + Library: Mass Book Digitization As Collective Inquiry, Mary Murrell

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Vol. Xxiv, Tab 61 - Ex. 2 - Rosetta Stone's Answers To Google's First Set Of Interrogatories, Rosetta Stone Dec 2009

Vol. Xxiv, Tab 61 - Ex. 2 - Rosetta Stone's Answers 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?

Go to article

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 29 - Email From Jason Calhoun, Jason Calhoun Oct 2009

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 29 - Email From Jason Calhoun, 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?

Go to article

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 45 - Email From Jason Calhoun (Rosetta Enforcement Manager), Jason Calhoun Oct 2009

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 45 - Email From Jason Calhoun (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?

Go to article

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?

Go to article

Vol. Ix, Tab 42 - Ex. 1 - Reporter's Transcript, Motions Hearing, September 18, 2009, United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia Sep 2009

Vol. Ix, Tab 42 - Ex. 1 - Reporter's Transcript, Motions Hearing, September 18, 2009, United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia

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?

Go to article

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 28 - Email From Christopher Klipple, Christopher Klipple Sep 2009

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 28 - 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?

Go to article

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 25 - Email From Christopher Klipple, Christopher Klipple May 2009

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 25 - 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?

Go to article

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?

Go to article

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Ex. 14 - Document Minutes Of A Regular Meeting Of The Disclosure Committee Of Google, Google May 2009

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Ex. 14 - Document Minutes Of A Regular Meeting Of The Disclosure Committee Of Google, 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?

Go to article

Vol. Viii, Tab 39 - Ex. 4 - Naso News, Google Apr 2009

Vol. Viii, Tab 39 - Ex. 4 - Naso News, 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?

Go to article

Vol. Ix, Tab 43 - Google Memorandum In Support Of Its Motion To Exclude Expert Report And Opinion Of Dr. Kent Van Liere, Google Apr 2009

Vol. Ix, Tab 43 - Google Memorandum In Support Of Its Motion To Exclude Expert Report And Opinion Of Dr. Kent Van Liere, 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?

Go to article

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 28 - Email From Christopher Klipple (Rosetta Stone Marketing Manager), Christopher Klipple Mar 2009

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 28 - Email From Christopher Klipple (Rosetta Stone 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?

Go to article

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 26 - Email From Jason Calhoun, Jason Calhoun Mar 2009

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 26 - Email From Jason Calhoun, 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?

Go to article

First Prev Next Last