Fourth Circuit

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that accepting a website’s terms of use through a so-called “clickwrap” agreement constitutes a signature for purposes of effecting a transfer of copyright.

The case, Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc., revolved around photographs displayed with real estate listings.  The plaintiff, MRIS, operated an online real estate listing service.  As part of its terms of use, MRIS’s service required users to “irrevocably assign” all rights they had in any images submitted as part of a listing.  The defendant, AHRN, a real estate broker, displayed photographs taken from the plaintiff’s site on its own website.  When MRIS sued for infringement, AHRN challenged its ownership of copyrights in the photos.  The lower court rejected AHRN’s challenge, granting a preliminary injunction, and the Fourth Circuit has now affirmed.
Continue Reading Clickwrap Agreement Found Sufficient to Transfer Copyright Ownership

Earlier this week, Google Inc. and Rosetta Stone Inc. settled their dispute over whether the sale of Rosetta Stone’s name to third parties for search-engine advertising constitutes an infringing use of Rosetta Stone’s trademark.  Google’s AdWords advertising platform permits third parties to purchase “sponsored links” that are shown to users whose online searches include certain keywords.  Rosetta Stone filed suit in 2009, alleging both direct and secondary trademark infringement based on Google’s sale of its name as a keyword used for this purpose.  Although the terms of the settlement have not been made public, Rosetta Stone announced that they will work together with Google to “meaningfully collaborate to combat online ads for counterfeit goods and prevent misuse and abuse of trademarks on the Internet.” 

In 2010, the Eastern District of Virginia granted Google summary judgment in the dispute, but the Fourth Circuit vacated that decision earlier this year.  In evaluating the direct infringement claim, the Court focused on the question of whether Google’s actions were likely to cause consumer confusion.  Even though Google itself was not passing off any goods or services as Rosetta Stone’s, the Fourth Circuit  concluded that a reasonable trier of fact could find that Google “intended to create confusion” based on “knowledge that confusion was very likely to result from its use of the marks.”  The court also cited evidence that consumers had in fact purchased counterfeit Rosetta Stone software from sponsored links that they mistakenly believed were authorized by Rosetta Stone.  The Fourth Circuit further held that evidence that Google allowed known infringers and counterfeiters to bid on Rosetta Stone’s marks as keywords was sufficient to withstand summary judgment on the contributory infringement claim.
Continue Reading Google Settles Search Engine Advertising Litigation With Rosetta Stone—But Sponsored Advertising Disputes Will Likely Persist