Fourth Circuit· 4/9/2012

Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.

Citations

676 F.3d 144
102 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1473
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7082
2012 WL 1155143

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that a defendant’s use of the mark, or “an imitation of it”, is an element of trademark infringement
noting that under Virginia law, “the concept of an implied-in-law contract, or quasi contract, applies only when there is not an actual contract or meeting of the minds”
holding a question of fact existed on the plaintiff's contributory infringement claim where the plaintiff notified Google of numerous advertisements for counterfeit products but Google continued to allow the same advertisers to use the plaintiff's trademarks as keyword triggers
describing vicarious Lanham Act liability as “essentially the same as in the tort context” without relying on the statutory text
rejecting plaintiffs claim that it was reversible error for the district court not to address each factor
describing how “an advertiser will try to outbid its competitors for the top positions in order to maximize the number of clicks on the advertiser’s text ads”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Traxler, Keenan, Hamilton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

59 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

43 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.