<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_12_1947245</id>
	<title>Rosetta Stone Sues Google For Trademark Violation</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247385660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>adeelarshad82 writes that earlier this week <i>"<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2350058,00.asp">Rosetta Stone, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Google Inc in a US federal court</a>, alleging trademark infringement. In the lawsuit, the company alleged that Google is allowing third parties, including individuals involved in software piracy, to purchase the right to use its trademarks &mdash; or other 'confusingly similar' terms &mdash; in Google's Adwords advertising program."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>adeelarshad82 writes that earlier this week " Rosetta Stone , Inc. filed a lawsuit against Google Inc in a US federal court , alleging trademark infringement .
In the lawsuit , the company alleged that Google is allowing third parties , including individuals involved in software piracy , to purchase the right to use its trademarks    or other 'confusingly similar ' terms    in Google 's Adwords advertising program .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adeelarshad82 writes that earlier this week "Rosetta Stone, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Google Inc in a US federal court, alleging trademark infringement.
In the lawsuit, the company alleged that Google is allowing third parties, including individuals involved in software piracy, to purchase the right to use its trademarks — or other 'confusingly similar' terms — in Google's Adwords advertising program.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669705</id>
	<title>Re:Rosetta Stone Inc should be ashamed....</title>
	<author>jonsmirl</author>
	<datestamp>1247392560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rosetta is a city in Egypt where the stone was found. So every stone in the city is a Rosetta stone. Google should do turnabout and counter sue the company for trademarking a generic term. I'm sure the city of Rosetta wasn't asked for permission to use their name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rosetta is a city in Egypt where the stone was found .
So every stone in the city is a Rosetta stone .
Google should do turnabout and counter sue the company for trademarking a generic term .
I 'm sure the city of Rosetta was n't asked for permission to use their name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rosetta is a city in Egypt where the stone was found.
So every stone in the city is a Rosetta stone.
Google should do turnabout and counter sue the company for trademarking a generic term.
I'm sure the city of Rosetta wasn't asked for permission to use their name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669541</id>
	<title>Re:Since 196BC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247391420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did find it humorous that, in a search for 'Rosetta Stone', the actual artifact doesn't appear until 3/4 of the way down the first page.  At least it shows up on the first page.  I noticed the following stats:</p><p>Links regarding actual Rosetta stone artifact: 5<br>Links regarding Rosetta Stone Inc.: 15<br>Links to other language translator companies: 4<br>Number of above links that actually looks like trademark infringement: 1  (www.Rosetta.StoneLanguages.com)<br>Other Rosetta Stone links (Rock band, unix based translator, Mac OS X ppc emulator): 3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did find it humorous that , in a search for 'Rosetta Stone ' , the actual artifact does n't appear until 3/4 of the way down the first page .
At least it shows up on the first page .
I noticed the following stats : Links regarding actual Rosetta stone artifact : 5Links regarding Rosetta Stone Inc. : 15Links to other language translator companies : 4Number of above links that actually looks like trademark infringement : 1 ( www.Rosetta.StoneLanguages.com ) Other Rosetta Stone links ( Rock band , unix based translator , Mac OS X ppc emulator ) : 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did find it humorous that, in a search for 'Rosetta Stone', the actual artifact doesn't appear until 3/4 of the way down the first page.
At least it shows up on the first page.
I noticed the following stats:Links regarding actual Rosetta stone artifact: 5Links regarding Rosetta Stone Inc.: 15Links to other language translator companies: 4Number of above links that actually looks like trademark infringement: 1  (www.Rosetta.StoneLanguages.com)Other Rosetta Stone links (Rock band, unix based translator, Mac OS X ppc emulator): 3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670569</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem....</title>
	<author>quetwo</author>
	<datestamp>1247399520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But according to TFA, Rosetta Stone's big beef with the system is that there are companies selling ILLEGAL, and pirated versions of their software, and marketing it via Adwords.  Essentially, if you look up Rosetta Stone's adword, you will see people selling "Rosetta Stone" for $50, when the software has an NPL of ~$500.  There are also others that are selling "Rosetta Stone Language Learning Software", and when you visit their website, they only have look-alike software.  This is perfectly in their right to ask the Goog to remove these listings -- they DO infringe on their trademark.  And technically, they are doing their duty by defending their trademark in this case (if they do not defend it, it could be said to be diluted, and can no longer be claimed as being theirs).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But according to TFA , Rosetta Stone 's big beef with the system is that there are companies selling ILLEGAL , and pirated versions of their software , and marketing it via Adwords .
Essentially , if you look up Rosetta Stone 's adword , you will see people selling " Rosetta Stone " for $ 50 , when the software has an NPL of ~ $ 500 .
There are also others that are selling " Rosetta Stone Language Learning Software " , and when you visit their website , they only have look-alike software .
This is perfectly in their right to ask the Goog to remove these listings -- they DO infringe on their trademark .
And technically , they are doing their duty by defending their trademark in this case ( if they do not defend it , it could be said to be diluted , and can no longer be claimed as being theirs ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But according to TFA, Rosetta Stone's big beef with the system is that there are companies selling ILLEGAL, and pirated versions of their software, and marketing it via Adwords.
Essentially, if you look up Rosetta Stone's adword, you will see people selling "Rosetta Stone" for $50, when the software has an NPL of ~$500.
There are also others that are selling "Rosetta Stone Language Learning Software", and when you visit their website, they only have look-alike software.
This is perfectly in their right to ask the Goog to remove these listings -- they DO infringe on their trademark.
And technically, they are doing their duty by defending their trademark in this case (if they do not defend it, it could be said to be diluted, and can no longer be claimed as being theirs).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28674887</id>
	<title>Yeah but...</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1247493240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When is Andrew Elditch going to sue Rosetta Stone for stealing his sound?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When is Andrew Elditch going to sue Rosetta Stone for stealing his sound ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When is Andrew Elditch going to sue Rosetta Stone for stealing his sound?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669527</id>
	<title>Goths... since 1989CE</title>
	<author>evilandi</author>
	<datestamp>1247391240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other other news, Goths sue over confusion with 90's Liverpudlian jingly-guitar dancefloor doom merchants who frequently tickled the top end of the indie &amp; dance charts.</p><p><a href="http://www.myspace.com/undertherosettastone" title="myspace.com">http://www.myspace.com/undertherosettastone</a> [myspace.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other other news , Goths sue over confusion with 90 's Liverpudlian jingly-guitar dancefloor doom merchants who frequently tickled the top end of the indie &amp; dance charts.http : //www.myspace.com/undertherosettastone [ myspace.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other other news, Goths sue over confusion with 90's Liverpudlian jingly-guitar dancefloor doom merchants who frequently tickled the top end of the indie &amp; dance charts.http://www.myspace.com/undertherosettastone [myspace.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669861</id>
	<title>Re:Seems they are being very proactive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247393640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may not fit the legal definition of extortion but it is potentially a form of it. Google lets competitors use it's trademark to drive up the value knowing Rosetta Stone will have to pay or risk loosing business. Obviously this has been done with domain names since the birth of the net but trademarks are different and protected and Google is selling this as a service. Companies are going to keep pushing the boundaries of the law and lawsuits until they get slapped. It's why we have laws and regulations to keep the bulk of it in check. They have every right to protect their trademark given the expense they have gone to to establish the name. This is about other companies trying to leech off their advertising dollar and nothing more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may not fit the legal definition of extortion but it is potentially a form of it .
Google lets competitors use it 's trademark to drive up the value knowing Rosetta Stone will have to pay or risk loosing business .
Obviously this has been done with domain names since the birth of the net but trademarks are different and protected and Google is selling this as a service .
Companies are going to keep pushing the boundaries of the law and lawsuits until they get slapped .
It 's why we have laws and regulations to keep the bulk of it in check .
They have every right to protect their trademark given the expense they have gone to to establish the name .
This is about other companies trying to leech off their advertising dollar and nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may not fit the legal definition of extortion but it is potentially a form of it.
Google lets competitors use it's trademark to drive up the value knowing Rosetta Stone will have to pay or risk loosing business.
Obviously this has been done with domain names since the birth of the net but trademarks are different and protected and Google is selling this as a service.
Companies are going to keep pushing the boundaries of the law and lawsuits until they get slapped.
It's why we have laws and regulations to keep the bulk of it in check.
They have every right to protect their trademark given the expense they have gone to to establish the name.
This is about other companies trying to leech off their advertising dollar and nothing more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670521</id>
	<title>Re:Since 196BC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247399160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the real Rosetta Stone is actually in posession of the British Museum...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the real Rosetta Stone is actually in posession of the British Museum.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the real Rosetta Stone is actually in posession of the British Museum...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28671751</id>
	<title>Wow. a fucking faggot has 'registered' Rosetta</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247410740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>stone as name, which is the name of one of the biggest discoveries of mankind, which has happed 200 years ago, and is now suing other people with it.</p><p>this doesnt classify even as prior art. its plain fucktardiness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>stone as name , which is the name of one of the biggest discoveries of mankind , which has happed 200 years ago , and is now suing other people with it.this doesnt classify even as prior art .
its plain fucktardiness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stone as name, which is the name of one of the biggest discoveries of mankind, which has happed 200 years ago, and is now suing other people with it.this doesnt classify even as prior art.
its plain fucktardiness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669779</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247393100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit. This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.</p> </div><p>Except for the fact that Joe Schmuck has every right to use his competitor's trademark in any way he sees fit, provided he does not attempt to confuse said trademark with his own product.</p><p>Buying the "Rosetta Stone" adword and putting in the add "Professional Language Learning Software" is perfectly legit and legal so long as the add does not imply that the language learning software company you are going to is Rosetta Stone.</p><p>If they dress up the web site to look very similar to the Rosetta Stone website, or are using their colors to confuse visitors, or are implying that they are affiliated with Rosetta Stone, they have Trademark Infringement.  However, if they are simply saying "try us instead" or "we are better/cheaper/whatever than Rosetta Stone" then it isn't infringement.  It's a legitimate use.</p><p>Google's policy, as far as I know, does not permit this and if they find out the ad gets pulled, because it is illegal.  What Google was doing before was simply making it extremely difficult for infringement to occur by not allowing companies to buy the adwords of trademarks they don't own.  That they can now does not mean doing so is automatically trademark infringement.  You have to misrepresent yourself as your competitor to infringe trademark, and buying and using a trademarked adword doesn't even come close to doing that by itself.</p><p>IANAL, but there are a lot of trademark cases that support this, even one recently involving Google Adwords.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck , a competitor , to use trademarks to their own benefit .
This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue .
Except for the fact that Joe Schmuck has every right to use his competitor 's trademark in any way he sees fit , provided he does not attempt to confuse said trademark with his own product.Buying the " Rosetta Stone " adword and putting in the add " Professional Language Learning Software " is perfectly legit and legal so long as the add does not imply that the language learning software company you are going to is Rosetta Stone.If they dress up the web site to look very similar to the Rosetta Stone website , or are using their colors to confuse visitors , or are implying that they are affiliated with Rosetta Stone , they have Trademark Infringement .
However , if they are simply saying " try us instead " or " we are better/cheaper/whatever than Rosetta Stone " then it is n't infringement .
It 's a legitimate use.Google 's policy , as far as I know , does not permit this and if they find out the ad gets pulled , because it is illegal .
What Google was doing before was simply making it extremely difficult for infringement to occur by not allowing companies to buy the adwords of trademarks they do n't own .
That they can now does not mean doing so is automatically trademark infringement .
You have to misrepresent yourself as your competitor to infringe trademark , and buying and using a trademarked adword does n't even come close to doing that by itself.IANAL , but there are a lot of trademark cases that support this , even one recently involving Google Adwords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit.
This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.
Except for the fact that Joe Schmuck has every right to use his competitor's trademark in any way he sees fit, provided he does not attempt to confuse said trademark with his own product.Buying the "Rosetta Stone" adword and putting in the add "Professional Language Learning Software" is perfectly legit and legal so long as the add does not imply that the language learning software company you are going to is Rosetta Stone.If they dress up the web site to look very similar to the Rosetta Stone website, or are using their colors to confuse visitors, or are implying that they are affiliated with Rosetta Stone, they have Trademark Infringement.
However, if they are simply saying "try us instead" or "we are better/cheaper/whatever than Rosetta Stone" then it isn't infringement.
It's a legitimate use.Google's policy, as far as I know, does not permit this and if they find out the ad gets pulled, because it is illegal.
What Google was doing before was simply making it extremely difficult for infringement to occur by not allowing companies to buy the adwords of trademarks they don't own.
That they can now does not mean doing so is automatically trademark infringement.
You have to misrepresent yourself as your competitor to infringe trademark, and buying and using a trademarked adword doesn't even come close to doing that by itself.IANAL, but there are a lot of trademark cases that support this, even one recently involving Google Adwords.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670661</id>
	<title>Actual text - Straight from the horse's mouth</title>
	<author>HashDefine</author>
	<datestamp>1247400420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The actual complain text can be found <a href="http://claranet.scu.edu/eres/documentview.aspx?associd=33849" title="scu.edu" rel="nofollow">here</a> [scu.edu]. It is surprisingly free of legalease and you can skim over it fairly quick.</p><p>PS: I love the fact that this story shows a big Rosetta Stone ad being served by google!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual complain text can be found here [ scu.edu ] .
It is surprisingly free of legalease and you can skim over it fairly quick.PS : I love the fact that this story shows a big Rosetta Stone ad being served by google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual complain text can be found here [scu.edu].
It is surprisingly free of legalease and you can skim over it fairly quick.PS: I love the fact that this story shows a big Rosetta Stone ad being served by google!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669691</id>
	<title>Oh come on, get it right please....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247392500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The French looted the Rosetta Stone from the wall of a fort in Egypt while trying to strengthen the place.
</p><p>The whinging Poms nicked it while the cheese-eating surrender monkeys were trying to smuggle it out and decided to keep it safe in the one place the Frenchies didn't have access to. Old Blighty.
</p><p>The Egyptians have since rebuilt the wall with stones looted from a temple near Karnak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The French looted the Rosetta Stone from the wall of a fort in Egypt while trying to strengthen the place .
The whinging Poms nicked it while the cheese-eating surrender monkeys were trying to smuggle it out and decided to keep it safe in the one place the Frenchies did n't have access to .
Old Blighty .
The Egyptians have since rebuilt the wall with stones looted from a temple near Karnak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The French looted the Rosetta Stone from the wall of a fort in Egypt while trying to strengthen the place.
The whinging Poms nicked it while the cheese-eating surrender monkeys were trying to smuggle it out and decided to keep it safe in the one place the Frenchies didn't have access to.
Old Blighty.
The Egyptians have since rebuilt the wall with stones looted from a temple near Karnak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669559</id>
	<title>Re:Since 196BC</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1247391600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.</i></p><p>More details here:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWP-AsG5DRk" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWP-AsG5DRk</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.More details here : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = BWP-AsG5DRk [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.More details here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWP-AsG5DRk [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669623</id>
	<title>Re:Seems they are being very proactive</title>
	<author>subanark</author>
	<datestamp>1247391960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the courts allowed a company to monopolize an adword, Google, would probably just increase the cost of using those words, stating that using a biding system won't work for that word if there is no competition. So, trying to reduce the cost of advertising with Google won't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the courts allowed a company to monopolize an adword , Google , would probably just increase the cost of using those words , stating that using a biding system wo n't work for that word if there is no competition .
So , trying to reduce the cost of advertising with Google wo n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the courts allowed a company to monopolize an adword, Google, would probably just increase the cost of using those words, stating that using a biding system won't work for that word if there is no competition.
So, trying to reduce the cost of advertising with Google won't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28672323</id>
	<title>I'm just a hardworking farmboy...</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1247416500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I know I have just ONE chance to impress this Italian supermodel, who lurks on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.  <br>
Commander Taco?  Come clean!<br>

So, sweetheart: <br>
Cos&#195;, la mia ragazza scarna brutta. Mastichereste prego sul mio grande salame grasso?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I know I have just ONE chance to impress this Italian supermodel , who lurks on / .
Commander Taco ?
Come clean !
So , sweetheart : Cos   , la mia ragazza scarna brutta .
Mastichereste prego sul mio grande salame grasso ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I know I have just ONE chance to impress this Italian supermodel, who lurks on /.
Commander Taco?
Come clean!
So, sweetheart: 
CosÃ, la mia ragazza scarna brutta.
Mastichereste prego sul mio grande salame grasso?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669837</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem....</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1247393580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.</p></div><p>Are you saying it would be wrong for me to say that my product is twice as effective as Rosetta Stone (tm) at half the cost, in my own advertisements?
<br> <br>
By choosing a name that is already in the lexicon, they have chosen a weak trademark.  A strong trademark is something like "Kodak" which Eastman chose because it did not mean anything in any language.  If they pursue this too far, they may find that they lose the trademark because there is an actual rosetta stone, and that any company that does translation or language-learning software should have the right to refer to it in their own names, their product lines, their literature and their advertising.
<br> <br>
Heck, I'm suddenly worried that I might be infringing by using Rosetta Stone (tm)'s name in this post!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.Are you saying it would be wrong for me to say that my product is twice as effective as Rosetta Stone ( tm ) at half the cost , in my own advertisements ?
By choosing a name that is already in the lexicon , they have chosen a weak trademark .
A strong trademark is something like " Kodak " which Eastman chose because it did not mean anything in any language .
If they pursue this too far , they may find that they lose the trademark because there is an actual rosetta stone , and that any company that does translation or language-learning software should have the right to refer to it in their own names , their product lines , their literature and their advertising .
Heck , I 'm suddenly worried that I might be infringing by using Rosetta Stone ( tm ) 's name in this post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.Are you saying it would be wrong for me to say that my product is twice as effective as Rosetta Stone (tm) at half the cost, in my own advertisements?
By choosing a name that is already in the lexicon, they have chosen a weak trademark.
A strong trademark is something like "Kodak" which Eastman chose because it did not mean anything in any language.
If they pursue this too far, they may find that they lose the trademark because there is an actual rosetta stone, and that any company that does translation or language-learning software should have the right to refer to it in their own names, their product lines, their literature and their advertising.
Heck, I'm suddenly worried that I might be infringing by using Rosetta Stone (tm)'s name in this post!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670551</id>
	<title>Re:Rosetta Stone Inc should be ashamed....</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1247399400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem is that trademark doesn't work that way. from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Fundamental\_concepts" title="wikipedia.org">everyone's friend</a> [wikipedia.org]: It should be noted that trademark rights generally arise out of the use or to maintain exclusive rights over that sign <b>in relation to certain products or services</b>, assuming there are no other trademark objections.
<p>
It's usually considered to be within a given market, not all uses of the word everywhere.  Generally speaking, this means you can open Coke's Auto Body or Rosetta Stone Exterminators, and nobody can say a word.  Presumably (having not RTFA myself), RS is suing because people selling competing language learning products are buying up 'rosetta stone' keywords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is that trademark does n't work that way .
from everyone 's friend [ wikipedia.org ] : It should be noted that trademark rights generally arise out of the use or to maintain exclusive rights over that sign in relation to certain products or services , assuming there are no other trademark objections .
It 's usually considered to be within a given market , not all uses of the word everywhere .
Generally speaking , this means you can open Coke 's Auto Body or Rosetta Stone Exterminators , and nobody can say a word .
Presumably ( having not RTFA myself ) , RS is suing because people selling competing language learning products are buying up 'rosetta stone ' keywords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is that trademark doesn't work that way.
from everyone's friend [wikipedia.org]: It should be noted that trademark rights generally arise out of the use or to maintain exclusive rights over that sign in relation to certain products or services, assuming there are no other trademark objections.
It's usually considered to be within a given market, not all uses of the word everywhere.
Generally speaking, this means you can open Coke's Auto Body or Rosetta Stone Exterminators, and nobody can say a word.
Presumably (having not RTFA myself), RS is suing because people selling competing language learning products are buying up 'rosetta stone' keywords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28673789</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem....</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1247480520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit. This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.</p></div></blockquote><p>DeVry sell law degrees now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck , a competitor , to use trademarks to their own benefit .
This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.DeVry sell law degrees now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit.
This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.DeVry sell law degrees now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669673</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem....</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1247392380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is NOT Google infringing upon the trademarks that Rosetta Stone holds. The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit. This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.</p></div><p>How is that obvious infringement? These are trademarks, not copyrights. If the public is not being confused into thinking a product is actually made by a different company,  there is no justification for trademark infringement. If Crest pays to show ads when I do a search for Colgate, that's a good thing. And no, I don't think anyone is being tricked into thinking Crest is made by the same company as Colgate. </p><p>These overly litigious barrators should be slapped down by the courts. Make your products better and cheaper. Stop trying to prevent customers from seeing ads from competitors and crapping on free speech to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is NOT Google infringing upon the trademarks that Rosetta Stone holds .
The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck , a competitor , to use trademarks to their own benefit .
This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.How is that obvious infringement ?
These are trademarks , not copyrights .
If the public is not being confused into thinking a product is actually made by a different company , there is no justification for trademark infringement .
If Crest pays to show ads when I do a search for Colgate , that 's a good thing .
And no , I do n't think anyone is being tricked into thinking Crest is made by the same company as Colgate .
These overly litigious barrators should be slapped down by the courts .
Make your products better and cheaper .
Stop trying to prevent customers from seeing ads from competitors and crapping on free speech to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is NOT Google infringing upon the trademarks that Rosetta Stone holds.
The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit.
This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.How is that obvious infringement?
These are trademarks, not copyrights.
If the public is not being confused into thinking a product is actually made by a different company,  there is no justification for trademark infringement.
If Crest pays to show ads when I do a search for Colgate, that's a good thing.
And no, I don't think anyone is being tricked into thinking Crest is made by the same company as Colgate.
These overly litigious barrators should be slapped down by the courts.
Make your products better and cheaper.
Stop trying to prevent customers from seeing ads from competitors and crapping on free speech to do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669581</id>
	<title>Something is wrong</title>
	<author>Lavene</author>
	<datestamp>1247391720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Norway someone trademarked the name "Ida" and a drawing of the now famous fossil. They sell suitcases. The problem with this is that the museum that's is in possession of the fossil can't market it self using the name and picture of the thing...
<br>
That's just not right...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Norway someone trademarked the name " Ida " and a drawing of the now famous fossil .
They sell suitcases .
The problem with this is that the museum that 's is in possession of the fossil ca n't market it self using the name and picture of the thing.. . That 's just not right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Norway someone trademarked the name "Ida" and a drawing of the now famous fossil.
They sell suitcases.
The problem with this is that the museum that's is in possession of the fossil can't market it self using the name and picture of the thing...

That's just not right...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327</id>
	<title>Since 196BC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247389440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669561</id>
	<title>Rosetta Stone Inc should be ashamed....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247391660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, Rosetta Stone Inc wants to sue Google for Trademark Violation. How about the British Museum, which holds the real Rosetta Stone, sues this upstart for using Rosetta Stone as it's trademark? Or the Egyptian government, which certainly has a better claim on the stone, which was looted by the Brits in the 1870's? Given all the confusion that already exists because this translation company has appropriated to itself the name Rosetta Stone, when there also exist the real Rosetta Stone, "The Rosetta Stone of immunology", "Arabidopsis, the Rosetta Stone of flowering time (fossils)", an algorithm for predicting protein structure from sequence is named Rosetta@home, and in molecular biology, a series of "Rosetta" bacterial cell lines have been developed that contain a number of TRNA genes that are rare in E. coli but common in other organisms, enabling the efficient translation of DNA from those organisms in E. coli. "Rosetta" is also an online language translation tool to help localisation of software, developed and maintained by Canonical as part of the Launchpad project, "Rosetta" is the name of a "lightweight dynamic translator" distributed for Mac OS X by Apple that enables applications compiled for a RISC processor (PowerPC) to run on Apple systems using a CISC (x86) processor. The Rosetta Project is a global collaboration of language specialists and native speakers to develop a contemporary version of the historic Rosetta Stone to last from 2000 to 12,000 AD. Its goal is a meaningful survey and near permanent archive of 1,500 languages. As well as being the name of the original Rosetta Stone, the term has come to mean something critical to decryption or translation.

Rosetta Stone Inc should be ashamed of themselves...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Rosetta Stone Inc wants to sue Google for Trademark Violation .
How about the British Museum , which holds the real Rosetta Stone , sues this upstart for using Rosetta Stone as it 's trademark ?
Or the Egyptian government , which certainly has a better claim on the stone , which was looted by the Brits in the 1870 's ?
Given all the confusion that already exists because this translation company has appropriated to itself the name Rosetta Stone , when there also exist the real Rosetta Stone , " The Rosetta Stone of immunology " , " Arabidopsis , the Rosetta Stone of flowering time ( fossils ) " , an algorithm for predicting protein structure from sequence is named Rosetta @ home , and in molecular biology , a series of " Rosetta " bacterial cell lines have been developed that contain a number of TRNA genes that are rare in E. coli but common in other organisms , enabling the efficient translation of DNA from those organisms in E. coli. " Rosetta " is also an online language translation tool to help localisation of software , developed and maintained by Canonical as part of the Launchpad project , " Rosetta " is the name of a " lightweight dynamic translator " distributed for Mac OS X by Apple that enables applications compiled for a RISC processor ( PowerPC ) to run on Apple systems using a CISC ( x86 ) processor .
The Rosetta Project is a global collaboration of language specialists and native speakers to develop a contemporary version of the historic Rosetta Stone to last from 2000 to 12,000 AD .
Its goal is a meaningful survey and near permanent archive of 1,500 languages .
As well as being the name of the original Rosetta Stone , the term has come to mean something critical to decryption or translation .
Rosetta Stone Inc should be ashamed of themselves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Rosetta Stone Inc wants to sue Google for Trademark Violation.
How about the British Museum, which holds the real Rosetta Stone, sues this upstart for using Rosetta Stone as it's trademark?
Or the Egyptian government, which certainly has a better claim on the stone, which was looted by the Brits in the 1870's?
Given all the confusion that already exists because this translation company has appropriated to itself the name Rosetta Stone, when there also exist the real Rosetta Stone, "The Rosetta Stone of immunology", "Arabidopsis, the Rosetta Stone of flowering time (fossils)", an algorithm for predicting protein structure from sequence is named Rosetta@home, and in molecular biology, a series of "Rosetta" bacterial cell lines have been developed that contain a number of TRNA genes that are rare in E. coli but common in other organisms, enabling the efficient translation of DNA from those organisms in E. coli. "Rosetta" is also an online language translation tool to help localisation of software, developed and maintained by Canonical as part of the Launchpad project, "Rosetta" is the name of a "lightweight dynamic translator" distributed for Mac OS X by Apple that enables applications compiled for a RISC processor (PowerPC) to run on Apple systems using a CISC (x86) processor.
The Rosetta Project is a global collaboration of language specialists and native speakers to develop a contemporary version of the historic Rosetta Stone to last from 2000 to 12,000 AD.
Its goal is a meaningful survey and near permanent archive of 1,500 languages.
As well as being the name of the original Rosetta Stone, the term has come to mean something critical to decryption or translation.
Rosetta Stone Inc should be ashamed of themselves...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670091</id>
	<title>Re:Since 196BC</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1247395260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.</p></div></blockquote><p>Namely, Ancient Egypt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.Namely , Ancient Egypt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.Namely, Ancient Egypt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670645</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247400240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is something like coming up with a spyware named 'Opra mini' and advertise it whenever users search for Opera Mini.</p><p>Opera browser, is of course a trademark for a product of that Norwegian company but it doesn't mean we can claim they are lunatic to trademark Opera music genre or laugh at them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something like coming up with a spyware named 'Opra mini ' and advertise it whenever users search for Opera Mini.Opera browser , is of course a trademark for a product of that Norwegian company but it does n't mean we can claim they are lunatic to trademark Opera music genre or laugh at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is something like coming up with a spyware named 'Opra mini' and advertise it whenever users search for Opera Mini.Opera browser, is of course a trademark for a product of that Norwegian company but it doesn't mean we can claim they are lunatic to trademark Opera music genre or laugh at them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669611</id>
	<title>Re:Seems they are being very proactive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247391900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually they are doing their homework -- sueing Google is listed as step #62 for improving your sites ranking....</p><p><a href="http://www.seobook.com/archives/001792.shtml" title="seobook.com">http://www.seobook.com/archives/001792.shtml</a> [seobook.com]</p><p>I am sure that they will get plenty of free press out of this. Creative marketing applied.</p><p>Bit like Ryanair's CEO saying that passengers will need to stand for the duration of the flight (yeah right) or that they need to pay to use the toilet on board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they are doing their homework -- sueing Google is listed as step # 62 for improving your sites ranking....http : //www.seobook.com/archives/001792.shtml [ seobook.com ] I am sure that they will get plenty of free press out of this .
Creative marketing applied.Bit like Ryanair 's CEO saying that passengers will need to stand for the duration of the flight ( yeah right ) or that they need to pay to use the toilet on board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they are doing their homework -- sueing Google is listed as step #62 for improving your sites ranking....http://www.seobook.com/archives/001792.shtml [seobook.com]I am sure that they will get plenty of free press out of this.
Creative marketing applied.Bit like Ryanair's CEO saying that passengers will need to stand for the duration of the flight (yeah right) or that they need to pay to use the toilet on board.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670289</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem....</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1247397000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use<br>&gt; trademarks to their own benefit.</p><p>Which in the USA is legal as long as the mark is not used in a way that would confuse the public as to what product it is getting.  A trademark is not a copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck , a competitor , to use &gt; trademarks to their own benefit.Which in the USA is legal as long as the mark is not used in a way that would confuse the public as to what product it is getting .
A trademark is not a copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use&gt; trademarks to their own benefit.Which in the USA is legal as long as the mark is not used in a way that would confuse the public as to what product it is getting.
A trademark is not a copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669415</id>
	<title>Seems they are being very proactive</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1247390340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a quick google search, 80\% of the ads were either put there by Rosetta Stone themselves, or an affiliate of the company.  They are still buying all the ad words, they were probably just upset that their cost of advertising went up suddenly when other people wanted those same words.  I don't blame them, I would be upset too. Of course that doesn't mean they should get their way......<br> <br>
I have no idea whether what they are doing is legal or not, and I'll bet there has never been a court case like this ever, nor is there a law that covers it directly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a quick google search , 80 \ % of the ads were either put there by Rosetta Stone themselves , or an affiliate of the company .
They are still buying all the ad words , they were probably just upset that their cost of advertising went up suddenly when other people wanted those same words .
I do n't blame them , I would be upset too .
Of course that does n't mean they should get their way..... . I have no idea whether what they are doing is legal or not , and I 'll bet there has never been a court case like this ever , nor is there a law that covers it directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a quick google search, 80\% of the ads were either put there by Rosetta Stone themselves, or an affiliate of the company.
They are still buying all the ad words, they were probably just upset that their cost of advertising went up suddenly when other people wanted those same words.
I don't blame them, I would be upset too.
Of course that doesn't mean they should get their way...... 
I have no idea whether what they are doing is legal or not, and I'll bet there has never been a court case like this ever, nor is there a law that covers it directly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669583</id>
	<title>stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247391720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Coke puts a commerical out saying 'Pepsi is horrible, drink Coke'<br>Pepsi doesn't/can't sue Coke for using its trademark...  It's that simple, how do these guys think they have a case</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Coke puts a commerical out saying 'Pepsi is horrible , drink Coke'Pepsi does n't/ca n't sue Coke for using its trademark... It 's that simple , how do these guys think they have a case</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Coke puts a commerical out saying 'Pepsi is horrible, drink Coke'Pepsi doesn't/can't sue Coke for using its trademark...  It's that simple, how do these guys think they have a case</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28677167</id>
	<title>Re:stupid</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1247502840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article doesn't give any examples, and when I Google Rosetta Stone, I see no fraudulent ads.  I see things like "Foundation Stone Learn Turkish software:  Way cheaper than Rosetta Stone".  and "$550?  Beware the Stone!  Spanish Language DVDs at affordable prices!!!"  That's if you find the competitors under the sea of cnet amazon ebay and other affiliates trying to earn some comission from linking to the genuine real software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does n't give any examples , and when I Google Rosetta Stone , I see no fraudulent ads .
I see things like " Foundation Stone Learn Turkish software : Way cheaper than Rosetta Stone " .
and " $ 550 ?
Beware the Stone !
Spanish Language DVDs at affordable prices ! ! !
" That 's if you find the competitors under the sea of cnet amazon ebay and other affiliates trying to earn some comission from linking to the genuine real software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article doesn't give any examples, and when I Google Rosetta Stone, I see no fraudulent ads.
I see things like "Foundation Stone Learn Turkish software:  Way cheaper than Rosetta Stone".
and "$550?
Beware the Stone!
Spanish Language DVDs at affordable prices!!!
"  That's if you find the competitors under the sea of cnet amazon ebay and other affiliates trying to earn some comission from linking to the genuine real software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28675255</id>
	<title>Re:Trademarks</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1247495520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Imagine calling directory enquiries and asking for the number for DuPont, and being given the number for a rival. The rival can use the name in advertising as a comparison, they cannot buy the right to use the name to direct people to them.</p></div></blockquote><p>I've imagined it.  I can't imagine why you think that's at all like the situation under discussion here.</p><p>You do know that the *ads* are clearly displayed sparate from the *results*, don't you?  When that ceases to be the case - when I click on a result link that says oracle.com and it takes me to sap.com, then you might have a point.  But it it ain't so you don't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine calling directory enquiries and asking for the number for DuPont , and being given the number for a rival .
The rival can use the name in advertising as a comparison , they can not buy the right to use the name to direct people to them.I 've imagined it .
I ca n't imagine why you think that 's at all like the situation under discussion here.You do know that the * ads * are clearly displayed sparate from the * results * , do n't you ?
When that ceases to be the case - when I click on a result link that says oracle.com and it takes me to sap.com , then you might have a point .
But it it ai n't so you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine calling directory enquiries and asking for the number for DuPont, and being given the number for a rival.
The rival can use the name in advertising as a comparison, they cannot buy the right to use the name to direct people to them.I've imagined it.
I can't imagine why you think that's at all like the situation under discussion here.You do know that the *ads* are clearly displayed sparate from the *results*, don't you?
When that ceases to be the case - when I click on a result link that says oracle.com and it takes me to sap.com, then you might have a point.
But it it ain't so you don't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28673943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669325</id>
	<title>Has this not already been attempted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247389380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and didn't it fail?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and did n't it fail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and didn't it fail?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567</id>
	<title>The real problem....</title>
	<author>Siberwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1247391660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those who skimmed TFA:
<br> <br>
<i>Last month, Google changed its policy stating that "advertisers will be allowed to use trademark terms in their ad text even if they do not own that trademark or have explicit approval from the trademark owner to use it," Rosetta Stone said</i>
<br> <br>
The problem is NOT Google infringing upon the trademarks that Rosetta Stone holds.  The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit.  This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.  I'm confused though, as to why Google JUST now started to allow this.  If it was a no-brainer back when Adwords started, wouldn't they have allowed it at that point?  Sounds to me like Adwords revenue was down, and allowing the use of non-approved trademarks in ads made the Adsword space that much more appealing in hopes of getting people off the fence when evaluating their advertising budget.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who skimmed TFA : Last month , Google changed its policy stating that " advertisers will be allowed to use trademark terms in their ad text even if they do not own that trademark or have explicit approval from the trademark owner to use it , " Rosetta Stone said The problem is NOT Google infringing upon the trademarks that Rosetta Stone holds .
The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck , a competitor , to use trademarks to their own benefit .
This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue .
I 'm confused though , as to why Google JUST now started to allow this .
If it was a no-brainer back when Adwords started , would n't they have allowed it at that point ?
Sounds to me like Adwords revenue was down , and allowing the use of non-approved trademarks in ads made the Adsword space that much more appealing in hopes of getting people off the fence when evaluating their advertising budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who skimmed TFA:
 
Last month, Google changed its policy stating that "advertisers will be allowed to use trademark terms in their ad text even if they do not own that trademark or have explicit approval from the trademark owner to use it," Rosetta Stone said
 
The problem is NOT Google infringing upon the trademarks that Rosetta Stone holds.
The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit.
This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue.
I'm confused though, as to why Google JUST now started to allow this.
If it was a no-brainer back when Adwords started, wouldn't they have allowed it at that point?
Sounds to me like Adwords revenue was down, and allowing the use of non-approved trademarks in ads made the Adsword space that much more appealing in hopes of getting people off the fence when evaluating their advertising budget.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669915</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem....</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1247393940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm confused though, as to why Google JUST now started to allow this.</p> </div><p>This has been happening since Adwords started, but they modifying their policy recently maybe from legal advice or as a business move.</p><p>However, I am afraid this change is what opened the door for them to get sued, because now they are openly justifying it. And Google is a much bigger fish than Joe Schmuck buying ads from his home office.</p><p>Rosetta's lawyers know what they are doing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused though , as to why Google JUST now started to allow this .
This has been happening since Adwords started , but they modifying their policy recently maybe from legal advice or as a business move.However , I am afraid this change is what opened the door for them to get sued , because now they are openly justifying it .
And Google is a much bigger fish than Joe Schmuck buying ads from his home office.Rosetta 's lawyers know what they are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused though, as to why Google JUST now started to allow this.
This has been happening since Adwords started, but they modifying their policy recently maybe from legal advice or as a business move.However, I am afraid this change is what opened the door for them to get sued, because now they are openly justifying it.
And Google is a much bigger fish than Joe Schmuck buying ads from his home office.Rosetta's lawyers know what they are doing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28673943</id>
	<title>Trademarks</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1247482680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It strikes me that Google is doing an end run around trademark law.<br>What they are doing in fact, is allowing a company to associate a trademark which they do not have the rights to, with their own competing product.<br> <br>Under trademark law, you cannot primarily describe your product using a trademarked name unless you own the trademark. Yes you can say it's "like" the trademarked version, and yes you can have your product listed near the trademarked one. What you can't do is buy the trademarked term for use in advertising your own competing product. this is the fundamental point of a trademark. Otherwise you can have a big H1 header saying Microsoft&reg; with some tiny small print at the bottom saying "no, not really".<b> Google is selling other peoples trademarks for use by competing companies. </b>This is what's wrong. It doesn't matter what the end user sees, or whether the competing ad then goes on to claim that it is the genuine trademarked article. Google is selling a trademarked term to competitors. It does not have the right to do that. Imagine if your local newspaper allowed your competitors to use your name to direct people to their contact details.<br> <br>Google are breaking trademark law. They do not own the trademarks concerned, they have no right to <b>sell</b> them to others.<br> <br>Let me make my point clear - sure, a competitor can place an ad containing someone elses trademark, google can even search for and display ads using that trademark as a search term, but they cannot actively sell that trademark for a competitors use, because they don't have the legal right. The only way a trademark should be used in adwords, is by the trademark holder, and google should not be able to charge for that.<br> <br>Imagine calling directory enquiries and asking for the number for DuPont, and being given the number for a rival. The rival can use the name in advertising as a comparison, they cannot buy the right to use the name to direct people to them. If I search for Rosetta Stone language course, Rosetta Stone should be at the head of the list, competitors who use Rosetta Stone in their blurb would be listed further down the page, and only because their text contained the searched for terms, not because they paid for the rights to the term "Rosetta Stone", which neither they nor Google have any legal right to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It strikes me that Google is doing an end run around trademark law.What they are doing in fact , is allowing a company to associate a trademark which they do not have the rights to , with their own competing product .
Under trademark law , you can not primarily describe your product using a trademarked name unless you own the trademark .
Yes you can say it 's " like " the trademarked version , and yes you can have your product listed near the trademarked one .
What you ca n't do is buy the trademarked term for use in advertising your own competing product .
this is the fundamental point of a trademark .
Otherwise you can have a big H1 header saying Microsoft   with some tiny small print at the bottom saying " no , not really " .
Google is selling other peoples trademarks for use by competing companies .
This is what 's wrong .
It does n't matter what the end user sees , or whether the competing ad then goes on to claim that it is the genuine trademarked article .
Google is selling a trademarked term to competitors .
It does not have the right to do that .
Imagine if your local newspaper allowed your competitors to use your name to direct people to their contact details .
Google are breaking trademark law .
They do not own the trademarks concerned , they have no right to sell them to others .
Let me make my point clear - sure , a competitor can place an ad containing someone elses trademark , google can even search for and display ads using that trademark as a search term , but they can not actively sell that trademark for a competitors use , because they do n't have the legal right .
The only way a trademark should be used in adwords , is by the trademark holder , and google should not be able to charge for that .
Imagine calling directory enquiries and asking for the number for DuPont , and being given the number for a rival .
The rival can use the name in advertising as a comparison , they can not buy the right to use the name to direct people to them .
If I search for Rosetta Stone language course , Rosetta Stone should be at the head of the list , competitors who use Rosetta Stone in their blurb would be listed further down the page , and only because their text contained the searched for terms , not because they paid for the rights to the term " Rosetta Stone " , which neither they nor Google have any legal right to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It strikes me that Google is doing an end run around trademark law.What they are doing in fact, is allowing a company to associate a trademark which they do not have the rights to, with their own competing product.
Under trademark law, you cannot primarily describe your product using a trademarked name unless you own the trademark.
Yes you can say it's "like" the trademarked version, and yes you can have your product listed near the trademarked one.
What you can't do is buy the trademarked term for use in advertising your own competing product.
this is the fundamental point of a trademark.
Otherwise you can have a big H1 header saying Microsoft® with some tiny small print at the bottom saying "no, not really".
Google is selling other peoples trademarks for use by competing companies.
This is what's wrong.
It doesn't matter what the end user sees, or whether the competing ad then goes on to claim that it is the genuine trademarked article.
Google is selling a trademarked term to competitors.
It does not have the right to do that.
Imagine if your local newspaper allowed your competitors to use your name to direct people to their contact details.
Google are breaking trademark law.
They do not own the trademarks concerned, they have no right to sell them to others.
Let me make my point clear - sure, a competitor can place an ad containing someone elses trademark, google can even search for and display ads using that trademark as a search term, but they cannot actively sell that trademark for a competitors use, because they don't have the legal right.
The only way a trademark should be used in adwords, is by the trademark holder, and google should not be able to charge for that.
Imagine calling directory enquiries and asking for the number for DuPont, and being given the number for a rival.
The rival can use the name in advertising as a comparison, they cannot buy the right to use the name to direct people to them.
If I search for Rosetta Stone language course, Rosetta Stone should be at the head of the list, competitors who use Rosetta Stone in their blurb would be listed further down the page, and only because their text contained the searched for terms, not because they paid for the rights to the term "Rosetta Stone", which neither they nor Google have any legal right to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28680283</id>
	<title>Overreaching</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1247513040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google has created an entirely new piece of virtual real estate in terms on on-line ads, and now Rosetta Stone (how can they even own that term?) claims that they own land on it. I think RS is full of crap and if they wanted to use the term there then they should have bought it. I hope that the courts slap them down HARD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has created an entirely new piece of virtual real estate in terms on on-line ads , and now Rosetta Stone ( how can they even own that term ?
) claims that they own land on it .
I think RS is full of crap and if they wanted to use the term there then they should have bought it .
I hope that the courts slap them down HARD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has created an entirely new piece of virtual real estate in terms on on-line ads, and now Rosetta Stone (how can they even own that term?
) claims that they own land on it.
I think RS is full of crap and if they wanted to use the term there then they should have bought it.
I hope that the courts slap them down HARD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669905</id>
	<title>Re:stupid</title>
	<author>Quothz</author>
	<datestamp>1247393820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Coke puts a commerical out saying 'Pepsi is horrible, drink Coke'
Pepsi doesn't/can't sue Coke for using its trademark...  It's that simple, how do these guys think they have a case</p></div><p>This is a bit more as though Pepsi redesigned its packaging to look a bit like Coke's, then started a series of commercials showing that packaging and claiming it's Coke, to trick Coca-Cola fans into buying it. But even that analogy isn't quite on the spot: It's more as though Pepsi registered Coka-Cola.com, and Google suggested and sold ads linking to it when folks search for "Coke" or "Coca-Cola", with a line like "Enjoy delicious Coke here!"

</p><p>If Google restricted trademarks in their ads to clear comparatives, like <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/ecommerce/bus28.shtm" title="ftc.gov">the FTC mandates in all advertising media</a> [ftc.gov], there would be no problem. From here, it looks like they are indeed encouraging flagrant trademark violations, in clear violation of FTC rules. Similar suits in other media have been successful, and some of the penalties are statutory. I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess these guys and the seven other similar pending suits have viable cases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Coke puts a commerical out saying 'Pepsi is horrible , drink Coke ' Pepsi does n't/ca n't sue Coke for using its trademark... It 's that simple , how do these guys think they have a caseThis is a bit more as though Pepsi redesigned its packaging to look a bit like Coke 's , then started a series of commercials showing that packaging and claiming it 's Coke , to trick Coca-Cola fans into buying it .
But even that analogy is n't quite on the spot : It 's more as though Pepsi registered Coka-Cola.com , and Google suggested and sold ads linking to it when folks search for " Coke " or " Coca-Cola " , with a line like " Enjoy delicious Coke here !
" If Google restricted trademarks in their ads to clear comparatives , like the FTC mandates in all advertising media [ ftc.gov ] , there would be no problem .
From here , it looks like they are indeed encouraging flagrant trademark violations , in clear violation of FTC rules .
Similar suits in other media have been successful , and some of the penalties are statutory .
I 'm no lawyer , but I 'd guess these guys and the seven other similar pending suits have viable cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Coke puts a commerical out saying 'Pepsi is horrible, drink Coke'
Pepsi doesn't/can't sue Coke for using its trademark...  It's that simple, how do these guys think they have a caseThis is a bit more as though Pepsi redesigned its packaging to look a bit like Coke's, then started a series of commercials showing that packaging and claiming it's Coke, to trick Coca-Cola fans into buying it.
But even that analogy isn't quite on the spot: It's more as though Pepsi registered Coka-Cola.com, and Google suggested and sold ads linking to it when folks search for "Coke" or "Coca-Cola", with a line like "Enjoy delicious Coke here!
"

If Google restricted trademarks in their ads to clear comparatives, like the FTC mandates in all advertising media [ftc.gov], there would be no problem.
From here, it looks like they are indeed encouraging flagrant trademark violations, in clear violation of FTC rules.
Similar suits in other media have been successful, and some of the penalties are statutory.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess these guys and the seven other similar pending suits have viable cases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670469</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247398740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't new, didn't Gator/Claria specifically display competitors ads? How did lawsuits against them turn out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't new , did n't Gator/Claria specifically display competitors ads ?
How did lawsuits against them turn out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't new, didn't Gator/Claria specifically display competitors ads?
How did lawsuits against them turn out?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670731</id>
	<title>Profit!</title>
	<author>AceofSpades19</author>
	<datestamp>1247401080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Step 1: Trademark a common term<br>
Step 2: Sue google<br>
Step 3: ????<br>
Step 4: Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : Trademark a common term Step 2 : Sue google Step 3 : ? ? ? ?
Step 4 : Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: Trademark a common term
Step 2: Sue google
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28682907</id>
	<title>Babies</title>
	<author>xmvince</author>
	<datestamp>1247480760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like RS is just looking for a scape goat as their income falls.

What next? They gonna sue Google for global warming? They just need to keep it in their pants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like RS is just looking for a scape goat as their income falls .
What next ?
They gon na sue Google for global warming ?
They just need to keep it in their pants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like RS is just looking for a scape goat as their income falls.
What next?
They gonna sue Google for global warming?
They just need to keep it in their pants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28672201</id>
	<title>Re:Since 196BC</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1247415420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Rosetta Stone is in the British museum, and unlikely that they will give it back in the foreseeable future, lets hope they never do!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Rosetta Stone is in the British museum , and unlikely that they will give it back in the foreseeable future , lets hope they never do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Rosetta Stone is in the British museum, and unlikely that they will give it back in the foreseeable future, lets hope they never do!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669829</id>
	<title>Maybe I'm just confused, but...</title>
	<author>ysth</author>
	<datestamp>1247393520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember my supervisor saying a few months ago that a competitor had bought google ads using our companies trademark as a keyword, and google then quickly removed them at our request.

I wonder if the meat of the suit is the "confusingly similar", or ads that say "just like Rosetta Stone"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember my supervisor saying a few months ago that a competitor had bought google ads using our companies trademark as a keyword , and google then quickly removed them at our request .
I wonder if the meat of the suit is the " confusingly similar " , or ads that say " just like Rosetta Stone " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember my supervisor saying a few months ago that a competitor had bought google ads using our companies trademark as a keyword, and google then quickly removed them at our request.
I wonder if the meat of the suit is the "confusingly similar", or ads that say "just like Rosetta Stone"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669375</id>
	<title>Bottom line.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247389920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would probably be more cost effective for Google to just buy Rosetta Stone and shut it down. Sales are obviously down - but at the prices they charge, that's hardly surprising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would probably be more cost effective for Google to just buy Rosetta Stone and shut it down .
Sales are obviously down - but at the prices they charge , that 's hardly surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would probably be more cost effective for Google to just buy Rosetta Stone and shut it down.
Sales are obviously down - but at the prices they charge, that's hardly surprising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28677093</id>
	<title>Re:Since 196BC</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1247502600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What Google are you using?  Must not be my google.<br>
Result 1:  Wikipedia Article on the real Rosetta Stone<br>
Result 2:  Wikipedia Article on Rosetta Stone Ltd.<br>
Result 3:  Rosetta Stone Ltd's website<br>
Result 4:  Google Books hit for a book on the real Rosetta Stone<br>
Result 5:  Slashdot result for this very article.<br>
No ad hits at all, so I guess pending the lawsuit they pulled all the Rosetta Stone ads?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Google are you using ?
Must not be my google .
Result 1 : Wikipedia Article on the real Rosetta Stone Result 2 : Wikipedia Article on Rosetta Stone Ltd . Result 3 : Rosetta Stone Ltd 's website Result 4 : Google Books hit for a book on the real Rosetta Stone Result 5 : Slashdot result for this very article .
No ad hits at all , so I guess pending the lawsuit they pulled all the Rosetta Stone ads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Google are you using?
Must not be my google.
Result 1:  Wikipedia Article on the real Rosetta Stone
Result 2:  Wikipedia Article on Rosetta Stone Ltd.
Result 3:  Rosetta Stone Ltd's website
Result 4:  Google Books hit for a book on the real Rosetta Stone
Result 5:  Slashdot result for this very article.
No ad hits at all, so I guess pending the lawsuit they pulled all the Rosetta Stone ads?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28671837</id>
	<title>Google's response</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1247411640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google should buy the British Museum (home of the real Rosetta Stone) and sue them back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google should buy the British Museum ( home of the real Rosetta Stone ) and sue them back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google should buy the British Museum (home of the real Rosetta Stone) and sue them back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669831</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem....</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1247393520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has done this before... searching Google for "Yahoo!" resulted in a "Did you mean Google?" response. It's a practice new to search marketing where you specify your competitor's name to trigger your ad... effectively mounting a sign for yourself on the way to that competitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has done this before... searching Google for " Yahoo !
" resulted in a " Did you mean Google ?
" response .
It 's a practice new to search marketing where you specify your competitor 's name to trigger your ad... effectively mounting a sign for yourself on the way to that competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has done this before... searching Google for "Yahoo!
" resulted in a "Did you mean Google?
" response.
It's a practice new to search marketing where you specify your competitor's name to trigger your ad... effectively mounting a sign for yourself on the way to that competitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670753</id>
	<title>Red Herring Inc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247401260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am going to trademark Red Herring Inc, then sue anyone who references, links to, or otherwise seeks to benefit or profit from either the term Red Herring or the concept.</p><p>The Rosetta Stone existed long before Rosetta Stone Inc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to trademark Red Herring Inc , then sue anyone who references , links to , or otherwise seeks to benefit or profit from either the term Red Herring or the concept.The Rosetta Stone existed long before Rosetta Stone Inc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to trademark Red Herring Inc, then sue anyone who references, links to, or otherwise seeks to benefit or profit from either the term Red Herring or the concept.The Rosetta Stone existed long before Rosetta Stone Inc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28683989</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1247486400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>In Norway someone trademarked the name "Ida" and a drawing of the now famous fossil. They sell suitcases.</i> </p><p>Trademarking the name "Ida" probably doesn't do much of anything good for the company, as it can be a name, or initials for the name of a company or organization, and search results are going to be all over the place.. In the US at least, there can be companies with identical names as long as they are not competing against each other... Atlas advertising, Atlas snow shoes, Atlas roofing, etc.. I also don't see how an image or drawing of something that isn't an identical copy is a trademark violation in a non competing area.. If there is some copyrighted image at dispute, then that's something else altogether... How many animals are used as trademarks in multiple non related companies ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. or the Pyramids ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Why would a fossil be any different ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Norway someone trademarked the name " Ida " and a drawing of the now famous fossil .
They sell suitcases .
Trademarking the name " Ida " probably does n't do much of anything good for the company , as it can be a name , or initials for the name of a company or organization , and search results are going to be all over the place.. In the US at least , there can be companies with identical names as long as they are not competing against each other... Atlas advertising , Atlas snow shoes , Atlas roofing , etc.. I also do n't see how an image or drawing of something that is n't an identical copy is a trademark violation in a non competing area.. If there is some copyrighted image at dispute , then that 's something else altogether... How many animals are used as trademarks in multiple non related companies ?
.. or the Pyramids ?
.. Why would a fossil be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In Norway someone trademarked the name "Ida" and a drawing of the now famous fossil.
They sell suitcases.
Trademarking the name "Ida" probably doesn't do much of anything good for the company, as it can be a name, or initials for the name of a company or organization, and search results are going to be all over the place.. In the US at least, there can be companies with identical names as long as they are not competing against each other... Atlas advertising, Atlas snow shoes, Atlas roofing, etc.. I also don't see how an image or drawing of something that isn't an identical copy is a trademark violation in a non competing area.. If there is some copyrighted image at dispute, then that's something else altogether... How many animals are used as trademarks in multiple non related companies ?
.. or the Pyramids ?
.. Why would a fossil be any different ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670061</id>
	<title>I work for an automotive dealership</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247394960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a car dealership owned by a parent company of many dozens of dealers and this was brought up several years ago, local competitors buying adspace with keywords "John Doe Dodge" and whatever that were the names of our stores.  Someone up top actually had in a presentation "Sue the pants off of them!!" - just like I thought, it didn't work and they got nowhere expect in wasted legal fees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a car dealership owned by a parent company of many dozens of dealers and this was brought up several years ago , local competitors buying adspace with keywords " John Doe Dodge " and whatever that were the names of our stores .
Someone up top actually had in a presentation " Sue the pants off of them ! !
" - just like I thought , it did n't work and they got nowhere expect in wasted legal fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a car dealership owned by a parent company of many dozens of dealers and this was brought up several years ago, local competitors buying adspace with keywords "John Doe Dodge" and whatever that were the names of our stores.
Someone up top actually had in a presentation "Sue the pants off of them!!
" - just like I thought, it didn't work and they got nowhere expect in wasted legal fees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28683989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28675255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28673943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28677093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28673789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28672201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28677167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1947245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1947245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1947245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28683989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1947245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1947245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28677093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28672201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1947245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28677167
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1947245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28672323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1947245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28673943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28675255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1947245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1947245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1947245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28670469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28673789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1947245.28669915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
