Rosetta Stone sued Google over Google’s keyword search and advertising trademark use policies, contending that those policies create both a likelihood of consumer confusion and actual consumer confusion. Rosetta Stone asserted that the likelihood of confusion and actual confusion misleads Internet purchasers into purchasing counterfeit Rosetta Stone software. Rosetta Stone claimed the Lanham Act (trademark law) claims of direct, contributory and vicarious trademark infringement and trademark dilution, and the state law claim of unjust enrichment.
The district court granted Google’s summary judgment motion on the Lanham Act claims and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings on the vicarious infringement and unjust enrichment claims, but vacated the district court rulings on the direct infringement, contributory infringement and dilution claims and remanded those claims to the district court for further proceedings.