2009 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit,
2010
American University Washington College of Law
2009 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit, Donald R. Dunner, Bryan C. Diner, Esther H. Lim, Troy E. Grabow, Tina E. Hulse, Joyce Craig
American University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Panel Ii: The Global Contours Of Ip Protection For Trade Dress, Industrial Design, Applied Art, And Product Configuration,
2010
Boston University School of Law
Panel Ii: The Global Contours Of Ip Protection For Trade Dress, Industrial Design, Applied Art, And Product Configuration, Wendy J. Gordon, Orit Fischman Afori, Mark Janis, Susan Scafidi, Jonathan Moskin
Faculty Scholarship
Before beginning, let me mention that I will confine myself to a limited number of arenas. Thus, for example, I'm not going to discuss design patents, which will be the focus of another speaker's remarks. I will also not discuss the doctrine of aesthetic functionality. My primary goal will be to compare trademark's doctrine of utilitarian "functionality" with copyright's domain of "separability," and to show how for at least two circuit court opinions, the two doctrines may be converging. I hope to stimulate discussion of whether such convergence would be a good idea.
Briefing Cases: Session On Copyright Law,
2010
University of Baltimore
Briefing Cases: Session On Copyright Law, Lynn Mclain
All Faculty Scholarship
This handout contains the decision from Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (1978), suggested elements for how to brief a case in general, and an example brief for the Air Pirates case.
Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Spaziano Declaration,
2010
Skadden LLP
Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Spaziano Declaration, 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. Viii, Tab 39 - Bill Lloyd Declaration (Google Ad Support Team Lead),
2010
Google
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,
2010
Google
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),
2010
Google
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),
2010
Google
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,
2010
Santa Clara Law
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),
2010
Google
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. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 4 - Plaintiff Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosures,
2010
Santa Clara Law
Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 4 - Plaintiff Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosures, 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. Xxiv, Tab 61 - Ex. 3 - Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Response To Google's First Set Of Interrogatories,
2010
Santa Clara Law
Vol. Xxiv, Tab 61 - Ex. 3 - Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Response 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. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 51 - Adams Deposition (Rosetta Stone Ceo),
2010
Rosetta Stone
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),
2010
Santa Clara Law
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),
2010
Google
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),
2010
Google
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),
2010
Rosetta Stone
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,
2010
Santa Clara Law
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),
2010
Google
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),
2010
Rosetta Stone
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?
