These Shoes are Made for Selling - AG Szpunar Opines on Intermediary Liability and the 'Use' of a Trademark for Online Marketplaces

Intermediaries in e-commerce are a near necessity for many online sellers of products, but they can produce headaches and issues where potentially unauthorized goods are sold through them that infringe a company's IP rights. The status of intermediaries' liability has been slowly evolving in the courts, and a hotly anticipated decision by the CJEU on the issues is very close in the horizon that should clear matters up significantly in Europe. Before this, however, Attorney General Szpunar has had their say and issued their opinion earlier this Summer (the opinion only being available in English very recently). The opinion sets the scene for the CJEU and could be a glimpse into the CJEU's position on the matter in the near future. 

The case of Christian Louboutin v Amazon Europe Core Sàrl concerned infringement proceedings launched by Christian Louboutin against Amazon, under which they alleged that: (i) Amazon is liable for infringement of his trade mark; (ii) it should cease the use, in the course of trade, of signs identical to that trade mark in the EU; and (iii) he is entitled to damages for the harm caused by the unlawful use at issue. Amazon unsurprisingly challenged this position, arguing that it is merely an operator of an online marketplace and cannot be held liable for the actions of its sellers. The Luxembourg courts referred the matter to the CJEU for clarification, which is closing in on the crescendo of the decision itself following AG Szpunar's opinion.

The case combines two separate actions in Luxembourg and Belgium involving the two parties. 

AG Szpunar noted that they both concerned the interpretation of the concept of ‘use’ for the purposes of Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. In essence the referring courts are asking "…whether Article 9(2)… must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of an online sales platform must be regarded as using a trade mark in an offer for sale published by a third party on that platform on account of the fact that, first, it publishes both its own commercial offerings and those of third parties uniformly without distinguishing them as to their origin in the way in which they are displayed, by allowing its own logo as a renowned distributor to appear on those advertisements, and, secondly, it offers third-party sellers the additional services of stocking and shipping goods posted on its platform by informing potential purchasers that it will be responsible for those activities". The courts also asked "...whether the perception of a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet user has an impact on the interpretation of the concept of ‘use’". 

As a primer, Article 9(2) provides that the proprietor of an EU trademark is entitled to prevent all third parties not having their consent from using, in the course of trade, any sign which is identical with the trademark. However, what amounts to 'use' in this context is paramount to determining potential liability under the provision for any would-be infringer. 

AG Szpunar then moved on to discussing the current definition of 'use' under Article 9. Some of the main decisions here are Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft, Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Google France SARL and Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA and L’Oréal SA v eBay International AG. 

The CJEU has found that the term 'using' in terms of intermediaries involves active behavior and direct or indirect control of the act constituting the use, and that the act of use presupposes, at the very least, that that third party uses the sign in its own commercial communication. The latter point was key in this according to the AG and without it any such use would be lacking.

In terms of the commercial communication aspect, the CJEU has determined that a referencing service provider does not use a sign in its own commercial communication since it only allows its clients themselves to use the relevant signs, with the result that it "…merely creates the technical conditions necessary for the use of a sign". 

Similarly, a marketplace operator would not be using a sign in its own commercial communication when it provides a service consisting in enabling its customers to display that sign in their commercial activities, and that the stocking of goods bearing the relevant sign is not a use of that sign in a third party’s own commercial communication since it has not itself offered the goods for sale or put them on the market. 

The AG does highlight that this set of definitions is not a clear one and needs to be more specific and focused to make better sense. 

The AG very cleverly shifted the definition towards the recipient away from the actual communicator, i.e. the platforms. He discussed that the commercial communication of an undertaking would be to promote goods or services to third parties. To put simply, the intermediary adopts the sign to such an extent that that sign appears to be part of its activity.

The adoption condition still has to be looked at from the perspective of the recipient, i.e. the user of the marketplace, to determine whether the sign is perceived by that user as being integrated into that commercial communication. The user that this would be assessed against is a "reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet user". 

AG Szpunar then moved on to discussing Amazon's particular business model and whether they would be 'using' a trademark in the course of their business. 

The first question referred to the CJEU concerned, primarily, if "…the activity of a marketplace operator of publishing commercial offerings from third-party sellers on its website where those offers for sale display a sign which is identical with a trade mark". 

As noted above, this activity would not constitute a 'use' of a trademark (specifically decided in the eBay case), however, Amazon operates differently to eBay as a marketplace. Amazon provides a much more comprehensive offering, where third party sellers can post their own advertisements for goods in addition to Amazon's own. In those instances, the Amazon logo is merely present to indicate to consumers that the ad was posted by a third party seller. 

In that instances the AG noted that that would not lead to a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet user to perceive the signs displayed on the advertisements of third-party sellers as part of Amazon’s commercial communication. The same would apply to the integration of third-party ads by Amazon into specific shops on the platform, which is the type of organization that is integral to the functioning of these types of online platforms. 

The referring courts also asked whether "…the fact that Amazon offers a ‘comprehensive’ service, including providing assistance in preparing advertisements and the stocking and shipment of certain goods, has an impact on the classification of the use of a sign displayed on those advertisements by Amazon". 

To properly consider this the AG highlighted that you must consider Amazon’s activities as a whole to determine whether the involvement of that company might be classified as use of that sign. The AG thought that this would not be the case. 

Amazon's involvement, while able to give them more control over the sale of a product that may infringe a trademark, but that involvement was only for the benefit of the consumer so that they could ensure prompt and guaranteed delivery after a product is purchased. In the AG's view this is not sufficient to establish that Amazon has used the sign at issue in its own commercial communication. 

This position ties in with the decision in Coty, where the CJEU determined that "…a sign cannot be regarded as having been used in the marketplace operator’s own commercial communication where that operator stocks goods bearing a sign on behalf of a third-party seller without itself pursuing the aim of offering those goods or putting them on the market". 

The AG also noted that Amazon's posting of the ads in question would not be 'using' the sign in question either. 

To round things off, the AG summarized their position as answering the questions that "…Article 9(2)… must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of an online sales platform cannot be regarded as using a trade mark in an offer for sale published by a third party on that platform on account of the fact that, first, it publishes both its own commercial offerings and those of third parties uniformly, without distinguishing them as to their origin in the way in which they are displayed, by allowing its own logo as a renowned distributor to appear on those advertisements, both on its website and in the advertising categories of third-party websites and, secondly, it offers third-party sellers the additional services of assistance, stocking and shipping of goods posted on its platform by informing potential purchasers that it will be responsible for the provision of those services, provided that such elements do not lead the reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet user to perceive the trade mark in question as an integral part of the operator’s commercial communication".

The AG's opinion really sets the scene for the CJEU and seems very sensible in protecting the functionality of online marketplaces, like Amazon. If the courts would see things otherwise, this would clearly massively impede the functionality of these services, and in fact, without heavy moderation by the platforms themselves, would make them impossible to operate. This should not be seen as carte blanche for the platforms either, but could set sensible, clearer boundaries for both platforms, brands and third party sellers, but it remains to be seen what the CJEU's position will be. 

Just in the Middle - CJEU Decides on Intermediary Liability for Copyright Infringing User Content

The issue of intermediary liability for copyright infringement has been a thorny issue in recent years, and the case involving YouTube (discussed more here) in this regard has been trundling through the EU courts for what feels like decades (exacerbated by the pandemic no doubt). However, the European courts have reached their decision last summer, giving some needed guidance on the matter and setting the scene for intermediary liability for the future. This writer is woefully behind the times in writing about this decision, but it does merit belated discussion and is a very important decision to keep in mind in relation to intermediaries.

The case of Frank Peterson v Google LLC (along with another case; Elsevier v Cyando) concerns Nemo Studio, a company owned by Mr Peterson who is a music producer. In 1996, Nemo Studio entered into a worldwide artist contract with Sarah Brightman covering the use of her audio and video recordings. Further agreements were entered into in the subsequent years, including one with Capitol Records for the exclusive distribution of Ms Brightman's recordings and performances. One of her albums, "A Winter Symphony", was released in 2008 along with an accompanying tour that year. The same year her album and private recordings from her tour were uploaded onto YouTube. Mr Peterson attempted to have the materials removed from the platform, including through cease-and-desist letters, and Google subsequently blocked access to the offending videos. However, even after this the content could be accessed on YouTube again, and Mr Peterson initiated legal proceedings against Google in Germany for copyright infringement, with the matter ultimately ending up with the CJEU.

The other combined case, very briefly put, dealt with at the same time involved Elsevier, an international specialist publisher and Cyando, a website where users could upload files for hosting and sharing. Users had uploaded copies of three works for which Elsevier owns the copyright onto the Cyando website, which were then shared on other websites via web links. Elsevier also brought legal proceedings against Cyando in Germany for copyright infringement, after which the CJEU combined both actions into one.

The first question posed to the court concerned "…whether Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a video-sharing platform or a file-hosting and ‑sharing platform, on which users can illegally make protected content available to the public, itself makes a ‘communication to the public’ of that content".

As a primer, Article 3(1) provides the exclusive right to copyright holders to communicate their works to the public, which also gives them the right to prevent said communications by other parties without authorization. Additionally, what amounts to a 'communication to the public' includes all communication to the public not present at the place where the communication originates, so giving a very broad right to copyright holders. However, a balance has to be struck between the interests of the copyright holder and the interests and fundamental rights of users, in particular their freedom of expression and of information.

To dive a bit deeper into the meaning of the phrase 'communication to the public', this encompasses two specific criteria, namely: (i) an act of communication of a work; and (ii) the communication of that work to a public. 

In terms of the first criterion, an online platform performs and 'act of communication' where "…it intervenes, in full knowledge of the consequences of its action, to give its customers access to a protected work, particularly where, in the absence of that intervention, those customers would not, in principle, be able to enjoy the broadcast work". For the second criterion, a 'public' comprises "…an indeterminate number of potential recipients and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of people".

Finally, in addition to the above criteria, the courts have determined that for an act to be a 'communication to the public' "…a protected work must be communicated using specific technical means, different from those previously used or, failing that, to a ‘new public’, that is to say, to a public that was not already taken into account by the copyright holder when it authorised the initial communication of its work to the public". 

One thing to note in the context of both YouTube and Cyando is that both platforms operate through user uploads, who act autonomously from the platform, decide whether the content will be publicly available and are responsible for their own actions. For file-hosting services, like Cyando, there is the additional requirement that the users have to share a link to the content for it to be accessed and/or downloaded, which is up to them to do. While the users might very well be doing an 'act of communication to the public', it remains unclear whether the intermediaries are doing the same through this.

The Court noted that the platforms play an indispensable part in making potentially illegal content available, but this is not the only criterion that you need to concern yourself with; the intervention of the platform needs to be deliberate and not just incidental. This means that the platforms have to intervene in full knowledge of the consequences of doing so, with the aim of giving the public access to protected works for there to be an infringement.

The Court highlighted that, in order to determine this, one has to "…take into account all the factors characterising the situation at issue which make it possible to draw, directly or indirectly, conclusions as to whether or not its intervention in the illegal communication of that content was deliberate". These circumstances can include: "...[i] the circumstance that such an operator, despite the fact that it knows or ought to know that users of its platform are making protected content available to the public illegally via its platform, refrains from putting in place the appropriate technological measures that can be expected from a reasonably diligent operator in its situation in order to counter credibly and effectively copyright infringements on that platform; and [ii] the circumstance that that operator participates in selecting protected content illegally communicated to the public, that it provides tools on its platform specifically intended for the illegal sharing of such content or that it knowingly promotes such sharing, which may be attested by the fact that that operator has adopted a financial model that encourages users of its platform illegally to communicate protected content to the public via that platform".

In short this means that platforms will have to take positive steps to prevent the sharing of infringing content. Mere knowledge that this is being done isn't sufficient to conclude that a platform intervenes with the purpose of giving internet users access to that content unless they have been specifically warned by rightsholders of this activity. Making a profit from this activity will also not, in itself, make a platform liable. 

The Court summarized its answer to the question as: "… Article 3(1)… must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a video-sharing platform or a file-hosting and ‑sharing platform, on which users can illegally make protected content available to the public, does not make a ‘communication to the public’ of that content… unless it contributes, beyond merely making that platform available, to giving access to such content to the public in breach of copyright. That is the case, inter alia, where that operator has specific knowledge that protected content is available illegally on its platform and refrains from expeditiously deleting it or blocking access to it, or where that operator, despite the fact that it knows or ought to know, in a general sense, that users of its platform are making protected content available to the public illegally via its platform, refrains from putting in place the appropriate technological measures that can be expected from a reasonably diligent operator in its situation in order to counter credibly and effectively copyright infringements on that platform, or where that operator participates in selecting protected content illegally communicated to the public, provides tools on its platform specifically intended for the illegal sharing of such content or knowingly promotes such sharing, which may be attested by the fact that that operator has adopted a financial model that encourages users of its platform illegally to communicate protected content to the public via that platform".

The Court then turned to the second and third questions together, which it posed as asking: "…whether Article 14(1) of the Directive on Electronic Commerce must be interpreted as meaning that the activity of the operator of a video‑sharing platform or a file-hosting and -sharing platform falls within the scope of that provision, to the extent that that activity covers content uploaded to its platform by platform users. If that is the case, that court wishes to know, in essence, whether Article 14(1)(a) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that, for that operator to be excluded, under that provision, from the exemption from liability provided for in Article 14(1), it must have knowledge of specific illegal acts committed by its users relating to protected content that was uploaded to its platform". 

Under Article 14(1) Member States have to ensure that service providers of information society services are not liable for the information stored at the request of the recipient of the services, i.e. users, provided that the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent, or that the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove the information or to disable access to it. What is key here is that the provider has to be an ‘intermediary service provider’, meaning one that they are "…of a mere technical, automatic and passive nature, [i.e.] that service provider has neither knowledge of nor control over the information which is transmitted or stored".

The above assessment can be made considering Article 3(1), and if a provider contributes, beyond merely providing its platform, to giving the public access to protected content in breach of copyright, they won't be able to rely on the above exemption (but this isn't the sole determination on the exemption). Also, the technological measures that a provider takes to prevent copyright infringement, as discussed above, doesn't give the provider active knowledge of the infringing activity, and bring them outside the scope of Article 14(1). Knowledge or awareness, however, can be derived through internal investigations by the providers or through notifications by third parties.

Summarizing its position in relation to the questions the Court determined that "…Article 14(1)… must be interpreted as meaning that the activity of the operator of a video-sharing platform or a file-hosting and -sharing platform falls within the scope of that provision, provided that that operator does not play an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of or control over the content uploaded to its platform". 

The Court then moved on to the fourth question, which asked "…whether Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive must be interpreted as precluding a situation where the rightholder is not able to obtain an injunction against an intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe the rights of that rightholder unless that infringement has previously been notified to that intermediary and that infringement is repeated".

To put in simpler terms, the question asks if rightsholders are prevented from seeking an injunction against an intermediary if their services are used to infringe their rights, unless they have been notified of the infringement previously. 

The Court considered that national courts have to be able to stop current and/or future infringements under the Article. The process and any requirements are up to Member States to determine (but must not interfere with other adjacent EU provisions), which includes a potential requirement of notification before an injunction can be granted. However, this isn't the case strictly under the relevant Article. 

The Court did note that, pursuant to Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive, Member States cannot impose a monitoring obligation on service providers over the data that they store. With that in mind, any obligation to monitor content in order to prevent any future infringement of intellectual property rights is incompatible with this Article.

In light of its considerations on the question, the Court summarized its position as: "…Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive must be interpreted as not precluding a situation under national law whereby a copyright holder or holder of a related right may not obtain an injunction against an intermediary whose service has been used by a third party to infringe his or her right, that intermediary having had no knowledge or awareness of that infringement, within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a) of the Directive on Electronic Commerce, unless, before court proceedings are commenced, that infringement has first been notified to that intermediary and the latter has failed to intervene expeditiously in order to remove the content in question or to block access to it and to ensure that such infringements do not recur. It is, however, for the national courts to satisfy themselves, when applying such a condition, that that condition does not result in the actual cessation of the infringement being delayed in such a way as to cause disproportionate damage to the rightholder".

The fifth and sixth questions were the only ones remaining, but the Court decided that they didn't need to be answered as the first and second questions were answered in the negative.

As is apparent, the case is a huge milestone for the regulation of intermediaries and copyright on the Internet. It sets fairly clear guidelines and expectations on service providers but seems to attempt to strike a proper balance with freedom of expression and the interests of service providers and rightsholders. This, however, is very much subject to change with the introduction of the Digital Copyright Directive, which, under Article 17, now imposes an obligation on service providers to under threat of liability to make 'best efforts' to obtain authorization and act in a similar way when infringing content is present on their services. The case and the new Directive set the scene for service providers, who will have to stay on their toes with the prevalence of infringing content online these days.

Not as the Oracle Foretold - US Supreme Court Decides on Copyright Infringement in relation to APIs

APIs, or Application Programming Interfaces, are absolutely everywhere these days. APIs allow for two pieces of software to 'speak' with each other, sharing information across to allow for interactivity and interconnectivity between different software applications. While many providers share their APIs freely for implementation, there is still certain rights that attach to those APIs in the form of copyright over the code itself. Just like text in a book, code can be protected by copyright and, in many instances, is absolutely worth protection if a particular coding language becomes very popular. This has been the central focus of an epic legal battle between Oracle and Google in the US, which has spanned for nearly 10 years (discussed previously on this very blog), and the highly anticipated US Supreme Court decision has finally been handed down in early April 2021. 

The case of Google LLC v Oracle America Inc. concerned the Java SE program, which uses Oracle's Java programming language. Parts of the Java SE program's code (roughly 11,500 lines of code) was used in the development of Google's Android operating system, which formed a part of the Java SE API. Java SE is commonly used to develop programs primarily to be used on desktop and laptop computers, which also extends into the realm of smartphones. Oracle subsequently sued Google for copyright infringement over this copied code, and the matter finally ended with the Supreme Court after a long 10-year journey through the US courts. 

The Supreme Court were tasked at looking at two questions: (i) whether Java SE’s owner could copyright the portion that Google copied; and (ii) whether Google’s copying nonetheless constituted a “fair use” of that material. 

Justice Breyer, handing down the majority's judgment, first started off discussing the basic requirements for copyright protection. This means that the work has to be one of authorship, original and fixed in a tangible medium. Copyright encompasses many types of works, such as literary, musical and architectural works, but in a more unconventional manner it includes 'computer programs', which are "...a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result". In terms of limitations, copyright does not extend to "...any idea procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery". In addition to copyright protection in general, one has to consider the remit of 'fair use', which allows for the use of copyright protected works for various purposes, e.g. criticism, satire and news reporting. 

The first question, as set out above, concerned whether the provision extending copyright protection to 'computer programs' includes APIs and/or whether they are excluded as 'processes', 'systems' or 'methods of operation' from copyright protection. However, the Supreme Court skipped the copyright aspect of the matter and immediately dove into whether Google's use of the API was fair use.

Justice Breyer noted that computer programs differ from other 'literary works' in that such programs almost always serve functional purposes, which makes the application of copyright to them more difficult. He also mentioned that, in discussions to extend copyright to computer programs, it should not "...grant anyone more economic power than is necessary to achieve the incentive to create". The key is to not allow copyright to stifle innovation in the realm of computer programs. 

Justice Breyer also mentioned that fair use can be used to distinguish between expressive and functional features of computer code where those features are mixed, and allow for different programs to be more readily distinguished in the light of protection. 

Turning to actually considering whether Google's copying fell into fair use, the Supreme Court had to look at the well-established factors of fair use: (i) the nature of the copyrighted work; (ii) the purpose and character of the use; (iii) the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and (iv) market effects. 

In relation to the first factor, the Supreme Court discussed the use of APIs in general as a way for computer programs to speak to each other. APIs also comprise three different 'functional' aspects, which are various parts of code that handle different aspects of the APIs functionality. Justice Breyer highlighted that the parts are inherently functional and bound together by uncopyrightable ideas (i.e. task division and organization) and new creative expression in the form of Android's implementing code. In their view the nature of APIs diminishes the need for copyright protection over them.

In terms of the second factor, the focus is on the transformative nature of a copyright protected works use. Google sought to make new products using the API and to expand the usefulness of the Android OS - argued to be transformative and innovative around the copying of the API. The Supreme Court also noted that one has to consider both the commerciality and good faith in relation to the copying. Justice Breyer determined that, while Google's use of the API was a commercial endeavor, it doesn't mean that the use cannot be transformative. Good faith was not a consideration in the case, but Justice Breyer did highlight that the other factors on the copying of the API weight towards a finding of fair use. 

The Court then moved onto looking at the amount of the work copied. As discussed above, Google copied approximately 11,500 lines of code, which was a mere fraction of the totality of 2.8 million lines in Java SE. While the amount is important, it's the substance of what was copied that is the most important part when thinking about substantiality. Why the lines were copied was to enable Java experienced programmers to work with Android; without which this would have been very difficult. This objective for the copying was to enable the expansion of Android, not to replace Java SE, and the Court did see that this favored a finding of fair use.

Finally, the Court turned to the market effects of the copying, i.e. did it impact the market value of the protected work. Thinking of the use of the code, it was in a market sector where Sun Microsystems (Oracle's predecessor) was not well-positioned, and the primary market for Java SE was PCs and laptops. Android used in smartphones was in no way a substitute for traditional computers where Java SE was typically used. However, the code's implementation did benefit Android through attracting developers to improve the OS. The Court saw that the copying didn't impact Sun Microsystem's position in the marketplace, and issues with an impact on creativity within the development of programs like Android, weighed for a finding of fair use. 

Rounding things off, Justice Breyer discussed the application of copyright in the world of computers and the difficulties the old concept has in adapting to this new environment. In his view, copyright very much persists in computer programs (and their underlying code), but emphasized the fair use doctrine's place in the same. 

The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that Google's copying was fair use as a matter of law and therefore there was no infringement of Oracle's code.

The case is a massive milestone in the application of copyright in computer programs and code, and as the court observed, Google only took "...what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program". This is curious and can open the door for others to copy code as and when needed, without licensing, if it is used to allow for innovation through the implementation of well-established technologies. Justice Thomas did indeed write a very strong dissent to the majority's verdict, which highlights the blurring of copyright in relation to code. It remains to be seen how this precedent is applied by the courts in future cases, but it could very well lead to the limits of fair use in relation to code being tested sooner than you think. 

Indexing Free-for-All - US District Court Issues Injunction against Canadian Supreme Court De-indexing Order

After the decision in the Canadian Supreme court in the Equustek case, many, including this writer, raised concerns about the possible abuse of the precedent set by the case. The de-indexing of online content, while well-intentioned in the removal of infringing content, could still be used as a sword more than a shield against legitimate infringement, including against free speech. This writer for one awaited the first application of the case, particularly in a jurisdiction that leans more towards free speech, and seems like the wish has been granted by the District Court of the Northern District of California only a few weeks ago.

The case of Google LLC v Equustek Solutions Inc. concerns the same subject matter as the Canadian case. In short, Equustek sued Google seeking to force Google to block websites selling infringing goods all over the world, not just in Canada where Google had blocked the websites selling the goods. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately issued the order, and forced Google to block access to the websites all over the world.

Google challenged this ruling in the United States, arguing that the order conflicts with the First Amendment right to free speech, and disregards the Communication Decency Act, which affords immunity to interactive service providers.

Justice Davila first looked at the CDA, which affords immunity from claims to "…providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties". This means that should another publisher, using these services, publish infringing content Google couldn't be sued for that infringement. Even so, to qualify for immunity three criteria need to be satisfied: (1) the company is a "provider or user of an interactive computer service"; (2) the information in question was "provided by another information content provider"; and (3) the Canadian order would hold it liable as the "publisher or speaker" of that information.

Looking at the first criterion, Justice Davila concluded that Google was a 'provider of interactive computer services'. This means that the company provides "…any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server", which encompasses Google's search facility, among other services.

As the content, i.e. the website and the information contained in it (including the infringing goods for sale), was provided by Datalink and not Google, the second criteria was also easily fulfilled. The provision of Google's search facility relies on the company 'crawling' websites on the Internet, which it then indexes and makes available through search results. This allows for users to discover the content, which Google does not post, clearly being provided by 'another information content provider'.

The First Amendment - the best kind of pop-up

Finally, the third criterion looks at whether Google would be held liable for the content provided by another under the order made by the Canadian Supreme Court as the 'publisher or speaker' of that content. According to the order Google has to "…de-index the Datalink websites [from its global search results]… [because it is] the determinative player in allowing the harm to occur".

Per the decision in Barnes v Yahoo!, "…removing content is something publishers do, and to impose liability on the basis of such conduct necessarily involves treating the liable party as a publisher of the content it failed to remove". This liability as a third party for the non-removal of content, should Google not do so when ordered, clearly treats Google as the publisher of that content rather than a mere intermediary with no liability.

Justice Davila therefore considered that Google was immune from the claim under the CDA.

The Court then turned to the question of free speech and irreparable harm. Justice Davila swiftly determined that the Canadian order restricts Google's activity protected by the CDA, and deprives of it of benefits given by US federal law. Similarly an injunction wouldn't serve the public interest, as free speech would be restricted if websites "…were to face tort liability for hosting user-generated content". This has been particularly legislated against through the CDA. As the Internet and other interactive computer services "…offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity", the legislature deemed it required protecting for that purpose to flourish.

Justice Davila issued the injunction against the Canadian order as it "…undermines the policy goals of [the CDA] and threatens free speech on the global internet".

The decision is a very interesting one, and strongly advocates for the protection of the Internet from blanket orders requiring the removal of content globally. This writer is very much a proponent of this approach, as, amongst its faults, the Internet is a bastion of freedom and dissemination of information (including this blog as a very example of that). Infringements should be dealt with appropriately, but blanket de-indexing orders might not be the best way; however, with this in mind, third-party service providers do have to take some responsibility on the removal of content when needed.

Distinct as Ever - Google Not a Generic Term, Says US Court of Appeal

When a particular brand becomes hugely successful, it more often than not becomes very valuable, but even the biggest of players are not protected from the ill effects of popularity. A big problem that many brands face is the generification of their brand, i.e. it becomes so well-known and associated with a particular type of good or service that consumers use it to refer to all of those goods or services. Through this the distinctiveness of the trademark becomes diluted, and potentially is lost entirely. Many companies will therefore fight to protect their brands and to establish proper trademark use guidelines (for example, INTA has a set of guidelines for online use) to combat this issue. A case that has dealt with the 'generification' or 'genericisation' of trademarks has been going on in the US for over 5 years (discussion on the first instance decision here), culminating in a Court of Appeal decision in mid-March.

The case of Elliott v Google Inc. deals with the registration of over 760 domain names by David Elliot, which incorporated both the word "Google" and other well-known brands, such as Disney, in the domain name. Google subsequently objected to the registrations, lodging a complaint at the National Arbitration Forum (handling the domain name disputes for the provider). NAF ruled in Google's favor, and the complaint then lodged proceedings in the Arizona District Court for the cancellation of the Google trademarks under 15 USC section 1064(3) as being "...primarily understood as a generic term universally used to describe the act of internet searching". Elliott's case failed at first instance for lack of evidence as to this fact, and the matter since was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The main question for the Court therefore was whether 'Google' had become generic through use; however, as noted by the Court: "…The mere fact that the public sometimes uses a trademark as the name for a unique product does not immediately render the mark generic". Consumers would have to consistently, and for a prolonged period of time, use the marl for it to become arguably generic. Judge Tallman set out the legal test for this, which looks at "…whether the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is [now] the product [and not] the producer".

Judge Tallman continued that the claim for the genericness of a product or service always has to relate to a particular type of goods or services the mark is registered for. Elliott had defined this as 'the act of searching the internet'; however, the marks are not registered for these types of services. The Court rejected his argument, due to a lack of particular good or services designated for which the mark has become generic for.

Elliott's main argument in the proceedings related to the potential use of 'Google' as a verb to describe the act of searching the internet (using Google or not) by the relevant public, having therefore become generic. The Court rejected Elliott's argument, since he failed on two fronts: he failed to recognize that a claim of genericide must always relate to a particular type of good or service, and that he erroneously assumed that verb use automatically constitutes generic use.

Firstly, the Court highlighted Elliott's lack of specificity in setting out the particular type of goods or service the verb relates to. While he did set out that 'Google' related to the act of searching the internet in general, there was no inherent link between the claim of genericide and a particular type of good or service. In other words, Elliott's claim only relates to a broad, undefined action, rather than a particular good or service the mark is registered for.

Junior was unnerved by his own 'googling'

Secondly, the use of a trademark as a verb, according to the Court, does not automatically mean it has become generic. Elliott's argument was that a trademark should only be used as an adjective, and should it be used as a verb it would lose its source-identifying function and become generic. What the Court highlighted as the key consideration, as set out in Coca-Cola Company v Overland Inc., is "what… customers [were] thinking or whether they had a particular source in mind [for the goods or services in question]". What remains key is the consideration is the customers' inner thought processes regarding the goods or services, irrespective of the trademarks use as, for example, a verb or a noun.

This has been referred to as 'discriminate' and 'indiscriminate' use, where the consumer uses the mark as a verb or otherwise either with consideration of the underlying source or not, i.e. being happy with an alternate product or service being used instead of the namesake. The Court assessed that the main inquiry would be "…whether the primary significance of the word "google" to the relevant public is as a generic name for internet search engines or as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular", not simply has the mark has been used as a verb or not.

The Court then moved on to evidentiary matters. In determining whether the mark in question would have become generic, the claimant is "…required to identify sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the primary significance of the word "google" to the relevant public is as a name for internet search engines generally and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular".

Elliott's evidence largely comprised of consumer surveys and generic use by media and consumers at large. Elliott also produced three expert witnesses, who argued that 'google' is used in a generic sense when it's used as a verb. In most of the evidence the word 'google' had simply been used as a verb, which, as the Court pointed out above, does not in itself make a word generic.

The Court concluded that Elliott had failed to produce sufficient evidence that the relevant public primarily understands the word "google" as a generic name for internet search engines and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular.

The case shows that some battles might not be worth fighting. The evidentiary hurdle that a claim has to climb over in a claim for genericness is quite high, and as this case shows, even the biggest of players might not be as exposed as you think. Trademarks offer a versatile and flexible set of rights, which cannot be thwarted by a simple claim of verb use; however, rightsholders still need to remain vigilant over any claims of genericness from third-parties, especially if the name is of some note.

Source: JDSupra

Results Breakdown - Canadian Supreme Court Rules on Infringing Websites and Google Search Results

When reading this case this writer pondered what he would do in a world without Google (or search engines in general). Finding information on a web that's very close to an unrestricted space is both very useful, and can produce results you never expected, both in the good and the bad. Through the sheer power of the search engine, finding details online is quite easy, and can present an ingenius searcher with plenty of legitimate and illegitimate materials. This still poses the question: should search engines have to, or be forced to, restrict their results, to prevent the infringement of someone's rights? While this question often falls due to issues of jurisdiction, the Canadian Supreme Court endeavoured to answer it in a Canadian context only last week (with the BC Supreme Court decision having been discussed here).

The case of Google Inc. v Equustek Solutions Inc. dealt with the sale of devices that allow complex industrial equipment made by one manufacturer to communicate with complex industrial equipment made by another manufacturer. Equustek have developed, manufactured and sold such devices for some time. Former employees of Equustek, having left the company, started their own competing company, which developed and sold a similar device online, over which an injunction was granted by the Canadian courts. After a long legal battle, the respondents fled Canada and abandoned the proceedings, with Equustek subsequently pursuing Google to remove the website selling the infringing devices from their search results. Having initially received the injunction (limited only to Google.ca), Google pursued the matter further in the courts, ultimately ending up in the highest court in Canada.

What the case was all about was whether Equustek could pursue a worldwide interlocutory injunction through the Canadian courts against Google and its search results.

Initially, the Court set out the three-part test that determines whether a court should exercise its discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction: "...[1] is there a serious issue to be tried; [2] would the person applying for the injunction suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted; and [3] is the balance of convenience in favour of granting the interlocutory injunction or denying it. The fundamental question is whether the granting of an injunction is just and equitable in all of the circumstances of the case".

Google agreed that there was a serious issue to be tried; however, they presented a multitude of arguments for the Court against the injunction. This included that the injunction is not necessary nor would it be effective; a third-party should not be bound by an order on another party (and therefore be subject to the injunction); and that issuing an interlocutory injunction with extraterritorial effect would be improper.



Search results - the great unknown (Source: xkcd)

Justice Abella considered that, due to the global nature of the Internet, any injunction involving multi-national, cross-border entities like Google would have to be applied globally. In short, as the majority of Google's business happens outside of Canada "...Purchasers outside Canada could easily continue purchasing from Datalink’s websites, and Canadian purchasers could easily find Datalink’s websites even if those websites were de-indexed on google.ca. Google would still be facilitating Datalink’s breach of the court’s order which had prohibited it from carrying on business on the Internet".

She also added that an interlocutory injunction, such as in this case, is therefore necessary to prevent the defendants' infringement online. Without Google's indexing of their site their business would not be feasible. Justice Abella also determined that there would be no issue with the freedom of expression, as no other nations' laws would be violated by the injunction.

The judge followed with the notion that this injunction would not affect Google's 'content neutral character', as it does not impose further monitoring obligations on the company, but merely the removal of the specified web addresses from its index. The same would not cause any undue expense on Google, which is something they already do for other illegal, more severe content online, and actively complies with DMCA notices over copyright infringement.

While the respondents' business can only thrive through Google's services, the court acknowledged that they are not responsible for the harm caused; however, Google has the power to end the harm by de-indexing the content. Ultimately, Justice Abella dismissed Google's appeal.

Two judges, Rowe and Côté, dissented from the majority's opinion, arguing that the injunction should not have been granted. In their view, the injunction's effects on Google would be final, with no recourse (unless to adjust its terms through the courts), and that Google is not a party to the dispute and should not be subjected to the injunction in question. Finally, the judges saw that the injunction is mandatory, with very little proven effect on its purpose, and the courts are presented with alternatives such as an asset freeze or injunctive relief against the ISPs preventing access to the website.

Ultimately, the case turns on the fact that it can open the floodgates for a stream of applications seeking similar injunctions, impacting both Google's business and the Canadian judicial system as a whole. The Court did leave the matter quite open, and this writer is confident that more applications will follow the decision, since, as the Court observed, Google already complies with similar obligations on a regular basis. Worldwide injunctions should not be a common weapon used, but an extraordinary one, so this writer does hope that the Canadian courts will restrict its application to only instances where they are truly needed.

A Torrential Result - No Requirement to Censor Torrent Search Results, Says Paris Court

Just the mention of 'torrent' files can send shivers down the spines of rightsholders and their legal representatives. Often synonymous with online copyright infringement, the BitTorrent protocol is actually a very legitimate way to send and receive files without having specific hosting facilities to do so, saving on costs and often bandwidth. In a nutshell, the protocol allows for an individual or entity to download a file from several sources, taking only pieces and ultimately compiling them into one completely copied file. Even though entirely legitimate, the protocol has been used by file sharers for some time, allowing for the efficient and fast downloading of illegal files from the Internet, often utilizing websites such as The Pirate Bay (or any other search engine, for that matter) to find the torrent files linking to the illegal content. With this availability so ubiquitous, could rightsholders censor search results on search engines to prevent copyright infringement?

While there are no official translations of the case available, this writer has used machine translation for the purposes of providing quotations, and any translations should be regarded as unofficial and (possibly) not fully accurate.

Two recent cases in France aimed to deal with this issue head-on, where the French music producers' association, Syndicat national de l’édition phonographique (SNEP), took both Google and Microsoft (the decisions are only available in French) to court. Under Article L336-2 of the Code of Intellectual Property, a court can, upon application, force an intermediary to take all appropriate measures to prevent or stop such infringement, including, potentially, allowing and/or facilitating (through search results) access to torrent files.

Dealing with the case against Google, the Parisian Court found that, although Google France had no direct control over search results (ultimately controlled by its American patent company, Google Inc.), it still "...develops a commercial activity, which ensures funding for services offered free to users and participates operation the search engine business". They could not therefore, be exonerated from the claim brought by SNEP.

Leading the charge against Internet censors

The Court then moved onto discussing the admissibility of the claim, they quickly dismissed SNEP's claim due to a lack of ability to represent the parties in question (the artists named were Kendji Girac, Shy’m, and Christopher Willem). This was largely due to the SNEP's role as an enforcement provider for a select segment of the audio entertainment industry, and would not therefore qualify as a 'professional defense body' per Article L336-2. The Court ultimately rejected the case against Google, not forcing the search provider to censor the results containing torrent files to infringing files.

In a similar case, Microsoft faced a challenge in relation to its Bing search engine, which also provided access to results containing infringing music files from the aforementioned artists.The Parisian Court would not exonerate the company on similar grounds as Google's subsidiary, as the companies were tightly woven into the business of providing the search facilities.

The Court further rejected an assertion that Microsoft would be acting as a subsidiary by not blocking access to the infringing content, as Article L336-2 imposes no duty on companies to prevent access to infringing content. Although asserted by SNEP, Microsoft had not failed to comply with their notification procedure in Article 6-l-5 of the Law of Confidence in the Digital Economy, as the Court deemed that any action under Article L336-2 would be a separate action from the notification procedure. Ultimately, the Court rejected SNEP's entire case, as the censoring of all pages containing torrent links to infringing materials (concerning the artists in question now and in the future), would be "...general surveillance measure[s] and could cause the blocking of legitimate sites", even under the guise of protecting legitimate interests. They also added that the measures would be ineffective, and are not necessary, as the search facilities is seldom used to search for the artists in question with the term "torrent", which is quite easy to circumvent if needed.

Although this writer knows very little about French law, the cases seem quite interesting, especially in the context of the wider Internet. Allowing for the blocking of specific terms and the term "torrent" in a much broader scale would clearly impact the Internet experience many of us enjoy, be the use legitimate or not. The Parisian Court seems to have made a decision stemming from pragmatism and a deeper understanding of the Internet. While rightsholders would be dissatisfied with the decision, one can appreciate the balance that has to be struck when it comes to more overarching censorship measures.

Source: Ars Technica

Goliath v Jury - Google's Use of Java APIs Fair Use, Says Jury

The fight between Google and Oracle over the Java platform, specially the API (Application programming interface) for the program and its copyright protection, has been raging for what feels like aeons. This blog has discussed the Court of Appeals (where Google was found to have infringed the code's copyright protection through verbatim copying into its Android operating system) decision some two years ago, but many have waited for the jury decision in the saga, which was handed down only a month ago.

By way of a short primer for those who have not followed the matter closely, the case dealt with 37 API packages released by Oracle (at the time Sun Microsystems) which pertained to its Java platform. Google sought to implement Java into its budding mobile operating system, Android, but both parties could not agree on a proper licencing arrangement. Nevertheless, Google implemented the APIs into its own platform, Dalvik, which consisted of 160 different APIs (of which 37 were Java APIs). Due their verbatim copying into the Dalvik platform, Oracle took Google to court, asserting copyright infringement.

After the earlier decision in various stages in the US judicial system, Google consistently lost and was deemed to have infringed the copyright in the APIs. The jury in this instance sought to look at whether Google's use amounted to fair use, and thus not infringing the rights in the works. This decision was hugely important, as Google faced damages totalling nearly $10 billion.

Blake couldn't contain himself at the thought of
unlimited, free APIs

Judge Alsup gave extensive instructions to the jury as to their assessment on fair use under US law. The jury decided the matter in three days, reaching a unanimous verdict of a finding of fair use by Google. One could argue against their finding of fair use, with Google's use not being prima facie very transformative (due to the verbatim copying of code); however, building the Android platform using the Java API did change it to something more than just Java. The judge also emphasised the fourth factor, the effect of the copying on the potential market for the work, which, in this writer's mind, could have been the linchpin for the jury's decision. Even though Java is implemented into many systems, it in itself is not an operating system, although its free incorporation into such clearly would impact on its potential market. The jury saw that Google's use was fair, and one can only wonder what persuaded them to reach the conclusion.

Although there is not much to discuss on the substantive side of the case, as is usual in this blog, the decision still is an important development in the world of technology and computer programming. As Google's statement on the win expresses: "Today's verdict that Android makes fair use of Java APIs represents a win for the Android ecosystem, for the Java programming community, and for software developers who rely on open and free programming languages to build innovative consumer products". Arguably, Google does have a point. Java has become night ubiquitous in the computing sphere (although the emergence of HTML5 could, arguably, make it obsolete), and a lack of an ability to use the technology would severely hinder any attempts of building a popular, fleshed-out operating system. On the other side of the coin, this is a blow for reaping from what you've sown, and Oracle has a right to be upset with their loss (and incredibly monetary loss through unacquired licencing fees for the hugely popular Android platform).

Many in the software industry seem to welcome the decision, such as Al Hilwa, who saw that "... most developers would likely prefer not to be burdened by copyrights around APIs". This writer is puzzled with this response, since many programmers might not be so keen to share the fruits of their labor for free. Oracle have indicated that they will appeal the decision, and this writer keenly awaits any new developments in the never-ending story that is Oracle v Google.

Source: BBC News

Hidden Benefit - Use of Trademarks as Google AdWords Allowed in Australia

There are many aspects of the Internet that most of its users are blissfully unaware of, including mountains of code and infrastructure that goes unseen. This is important, since seeing every aspect of a web browsing experience would cause information to be muddled and hard to digest, if not impossible to handle properly, so this 'invisible' network is necessary for the modern experience. Even so, the hidden layers of the Internet could be used for nefarious purposes, or possibly to try and take advantage of the goodwill of businesses or their trademarks, which puts it in a position of some scrutiny. While this blog has discussed metatags before (in a Canadian context), a similar question arose yet again, only this time all the way across the world in Australia.

The case of Veda Advantage Limited v Malouf Group Enterprises Pty Limited dealt with Veda, who are a big credit reporting organization in Australia. Among providing consumer credit reports, they also offer a credit repair service, expunging incorrect or otherwise erroneous listing on a consumer's credit report, therefore improving their credit score (although Veda do not do this proactively, only responding to customer's notices on this information). Malouf Group offer a similar service, although liaising with Veda on their customers behalf (in the process acquiring a copy of their report from them). Veda are also in possession of several registered trademarks over its name, or variants of it, including VEDA, VEDA ADVANTAGE and VEDACHECK. In advertising their business online, Malouf used the name Veda in 86 Google AdWords keywords, which were targeted at those wanting to contact Veda and would be directed to Malouf's services. They were subsequently sued by Veda for trademark infringement for their use of the name (or its variants) in their Google AdWords campaigns, potentially contravening section 120 of the Australia Trade Marks Act 1995.

Under the section above a trademark is infringed when a sign is "...use[d] as a trade mark... that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered". The key questions therefore are whether the name "Veda" was used 'as a trade mark' and whether this was done 'in relation to services' that the marks were registered for.

Judge Katzmann, handing down the Federal Court's judgment, first dealt with the issue of whether the name Veda was used as a trade mark by Malouf in their use of it in their Google AdWords advertising. The use would have to be "...as a “badge of origin” in the sense that it indicates a connection in the course of trade between goods and the person who applies the mark to the goods". This has to be done objectively, including taking into account the nature and purpose of the use.

Google AdWords can be questionable at times

She rejected the notion that Malouf were using the signs as trademarks, as, in her mind, the selection of marks used in the Google AdWords platform does not create a connection with the services of the marks' owner, but act as a way to direct possibly interested parties to your own services. They can equally be acquired by any business, including Malouf's competitors, which would add further links in the search results. The marks are also invisible to the user, who will not see them outside of the results and their search query itself.  The invisible nature of the marks would not create an impression on the user that that specific word is what brought up the results, and therefore would not confuse them as to their indication of origin. She distinguished Google AdWords from metatags, which function differently and are possibly visible to the user (although, this writer will contest that many will ever see them), being therefore used as a trademark in the context of the Act. She concluded that "...the use of a sign which is invisible to the consumer is [not] use as a trade mark within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act".

Judge Katzmann then moved onto discussing the marks' use in the sponsored links that appear at the top of results when a keyword or words are searched. What is worth also noting is the use of the name Veda (and other words) in custom headings that appear within these sponsored results. Judge Katzmann saw that in the majority of the instances (all but one) the use of Veda was not a use as a trademark. In her view the use was to "...describe the object to which its services are directed — fixing, cleaning or repairing Veda credit files or reports — not as a badge of the origin of its business and therefore not as a trade mark". To put this into slightly different terms, this meant that the mark was used merely to describe a specific service, and not as an indication that it originated from Veda.

The final point in relation to infringement was whether the marks were used in relation to services in respect of which the trade marks were registered. As the marks were registered for several different classes they encompassed a wide array of services, including consultation, advice and analysis in relation to financial services (with plain financial services not being offered by Malouf). Judge Katzmann rejected Malouf's assertion, and accepted that the marks were used in relation to the services they were registered for, even if the services offered by Malouf were not identical to Veda's. After a very brief discussion, Malouf was also deemed not to have a defence under section 122 of the Act through a use in good faith. In the end Judge Katzmann saw that Malouf only infringed the marks in respect of two search queries (specifically "The Veda Report Centre" and "The Veda-Report Centre"), with the rest deemed not to infringe under the Act.

What was curious in the case is the discussion surrounding the European or UK position in relation to this type of meta-information and infringement of trademarks. Judge Katzmann distinguished both Google France SARL v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA and Interflora Inc and Anor v Marks & Spencer, determining that the wording used in the EU legislation was not an equivalent to the Australian wording, especially with the difference in 'using in the course of trade' (per Article 5 of the first Trade Mark Directive) and 'used as a trademark' under section 120 of the Australian Act. In her view, the use would have to be, contrary to the aforementioned judgments, as a 'badge of origin' and not merely in the course of trade (whether used as a badge or not). The invisibility of the use seems to be key here in an Australian context, whereas in Europe this seems to be mostly irrelevant under previous considerations.

The case also dealt with competition issues under the Australian Consumer Law, and Judge Katzmann deemed that the provisions were only contravened under the above two search queries for which the marks were also infringed.

All in all the case is very interesting, and provides some valuable insight into the nuanced world of the Internet and its hidden facets. Australian law seems to diverge, at least for now, from its cousins in Europe and the UK, and this judgment strongly cements it as such.

Source: K&W IP Whiteboard

Retrospective - Worldwide Injunctions on Search Results

Most of us, this writer included, take Internet search engines for granted, especially the research power they provide. Google, Yahoo and Bing offer a battery of tools to find nearly anything you'd want online, however, many of us would not be able to envision a world where their capabilities are restricted. The freedom of the Internet is one of its cornerstones, but it does cast a dark shadow through the very same freedom, for example, offering an avenue for those who wish to share, download and sell illegal materials with relative ease. In the same vein, those protecting their rights (or their online exposure, in lieu of any IP rights) undoubtedly would want to limit the capabilities offered by search engines, whether rightfully so or not. The question of injunctions over search results came to ahead in British Columbia, Canada, nearly two years ago, in a case that will be ultimately decided on by the Supreme Court of Canada in the near future.

The case of Equustek Solutions Inc. v Jack dealt with Equustek Solutions' technology that allows for industrial equipment made by two separate manufacturers to communicate with each other in a variety of ways. The defendants, Morgan Jack, Andrew Crawford, John Doe and Lee Ingraham (and their company Datalink), acted as distributors for Equustek's technology, ultimately conspiring to develop a competing piece of technology called the "GW1000", using their trade secrets attained through their role as distributors. Additionally, Equustek asserted that the competing technology used their logo and name, passing it off as the same (or similar) as the original. The use of the logo and the name (an the sale of GW1000) was conducted online by the defendants on their own website, selling the original product but switching it for their own equivalent once a sale had been concluded. Google, as a third-party, had nothing to do with the sale of the product, but they did display the infringing website as a part of their search results; however, refused to altogether block the defendants' website, voluntarily complying with only a part of the request made by Equustek. The plaintiff then sought a court order for the removal of the website from Google's search results altogether globally.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia then had to answer three questions: (i) Does this Court have territorial competence over a worldwide internet search provider such as Google?; (ii) if the answer to the first question is yes, should this Court decline to exercise jurisdiction on the basis that California is the more appropriate forum?; and (iii) Should the order sought be granted?

Roger Smith was preparing for the inevitable shut down of the Internet

The first question dealt with territorial competence, and whether the Court could rule in a worldwide capacity, especially against a US entity in Google Inc. (and its Canadian subsidiary). The starting point under Canadian law is to establish "...the existence of defined connections between the territory or legal system... and a party to the proceeding or the facts on which the proceeding is based". This, however, is assessed on a balance of probabilities based on submitted evidence, rather than a stricter evaluation of a connection. Due to the heart of the case being the misuse of intellectual property in British Columbia by Datalink, and the business therein, there would be a connection between the region and the proceedings (creating territorial competence under the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act). Going against this, Google's operation of a website accessible in British Columbia would not, in itself, be enough to establish a firm connection. In the end, Justice Fenlon saw that, in the Court's assessment, Google had a connection with the jurisdiction through its advertising activities in British Columbia, and the active provision of tailored search results therein as well.

As jurisdiction was established, the Court moved onto the question of whether British Columbia would be the appropriate forum, or whether the Court would determine California to be more appropriate, as is allowed under section 11(1) of the CJPTA.

Justice Fenlon deemed that there was no out of court relief available to Equustek, as Google's takedown system was seen as inadequate and not an appropriate remedy to protect any future infringement or sale of infringing goods by the defendants. This established a firmer need to conduct the proceedings in British Columbia, but was not the only consideration contemplated by the Court, as section 11(2) of the CJPTA imposed further factors for considerations. While Justice Fenlon dealt with the majority of the factors briefly, however, she considered the likelihood of enforcement of an order in California at more length. What this writer has to note is the potential negative ramifications of this, and the excessive reach the reach of the question of jurisdiction. Justice Fenlon saw things differently, as, in her mind: "...[the order potentially] would give every state in the world jurisdiction over Google’s search services. That may be so. But if so, it flows as a natural consequence of Google doing business on a global scale". In the end the Court deemed that Google failed to prove that California would be the more appropriate forum for the dispute, and moved onto the final question on whether the order can be granted.

The final question hinged on two aspects: whether an order can be granted against a non-party (with Google being a third-party to the dispute), and whether this order should be made against Google in a worldwide capacity.

There are certain exceptions under Canadian law that allow for the making of an order against a third-party, namely if they have knowledge of a court order and deliberately disobey it, or if that order is necessary for the aiding of fact finding or the administration of justice in any given matter.

As Google were notified by the Court of an order to take down the websites in question, the first exception potentially applied. Although not deliberately done, Google had not complied with the order before the Court of Appeal proceedings due to an administrative oversight. Justice Fenlon also confirmed that the Court could potentially grant a Mareva order (a freezing injunction) in this instance under the second exception to enforce the order against Google. Concluding the Court's position in their ability to grant this order against Google, Justice Fenlon saw that: "...the Court has authority to grant an injunction against a non-party resident in a foreign jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances. The fact that an injunction has not before been made against an internet search provider such as Google is reason to tread carefully, but does not establish that the Court does not have subject matter competence".

The last question on whether the order ultimately should be granted remained as the Court's last point of contention.

The Court considered Google's submissions on why the order should not be granted, which focused on Google's role as a passive third-party and the sheer volume of material it indexes, making it difficult or nigh impossible to police it all effectively and efficiently. Additionally the removal of the websites (or websites in general) under an order would be tantamount to censorship, and that the order sought would be way too broad.

Justice Fenlon disagreed with Google, approving the order. In her judgment, the order would not require Google to monitor its online content or activities, but to simply comply with the order to remove the websites from its services. Google also have complied with the removal of offensive or other illegal content, such as child pornography, doing so at their own behest, clearly showcasing that the removal of the websites would not be censorship or go above and beyond what the service usually does. She also distinguished the potential effect of the order from the purpose of the order itself, even if it gives worldwide effect. The impact of an order is a valid consideration, however, it does not in itself prevent or affect the Court's ability to issue one (and often, this worldwide effect is needed, as in this instance). This would have to be assessed in the light of "...a strong prima facie... or a good arguable case... to cross the threshold, and then to balance the interests of the two parties, having regard to all the relevant factors in each case, to reach a just and convenient result". As Equustek clearly suffered irreparable damage due to the inclusion of the results, and subsequent sale of the goods, the order was deemed to be equitable under the circumstances.

The Court, as said above, issued the order, with Justice Fenlon summarizing the Court's final position succinctly: "The Court must adapt to the reality of e-commerce with its potential for abuse by those who would take the property of others and sell it through the borderless electronic web of the internet. I conclude that an interim injunction should be granted compelling Google to block the defendants’ websites from Google’s search results worldwide. That order is necessary to preserve the Court’s process and to ensure that the defendants cannot continue to flout the Court’s orders".

The case is an incredibly interesting one, with the up-coming Supreme Court decision adding an extra dimension of importance to this saga. The removal of search results is clearly a big point of contention, and should the Supreme Court follow the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada could become the next destination for intellectual property rights holders to better enforce their rights on the Internet. Although the decision will not necessarily change the Internet as we know it, it can have a major impact on the freedom in it (for better or worse) and this writer keenly awaits the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court.

Knowledge for All - Google Books is Fair Use

Information, and access to it, is an incredibly powerful tool to create progression, social mobility and to affect even the biggest nations in wondrous ways. True or not, this writer is a firm believer in the dissemination and sharing of knowledge (even through blogging), and many initiatives have strived to give access to knowledge and information to those who cannot do so themselves. One such initiative is Google Books (in some ways), although clearly still laced with the sub-text of corporate gain, allowing for "...people everywhere [to be] able to search through all of the world’s books to find the ones they’re looking for". By no means altruistic, yet quite useful, the project aims to scan all of the world's books into one database, using it to allow people to find information quickly, effectively and inter-connectively (this writer notes this is not a sales pitch, even if it sounds like one). The project came under fire some time ago, prevailing initially, but the case since moved on to the US Court of Appeals, which handed down its judgment only last week.

To give this story some color, the case of Authors Guild v Google Inc dealt with the aforementioned project, where snippets of books (in image form or not) are presented to a user who searches the database for a word, phrase or sentence, with the results containing one or more instances of the search terms used in brief context. Some participating research libraries have also allowed Google to retain digital copies of some works under strict contractual terms. The Authors Guild did not accept this use of its authors' works (many of which act as plaintiffs in the matter), and took Google to court for copyright infringement.

The crux of the case lied in whether Google's use in the provision of its snippets and its search facility in seeking out the relevant content in the books amounted to fair use under 17 USC section 107 (and the four factors used to assess whether a use of a work amounts to fair use). The Court of Appeals proceeded, therefore, to apply the four factors of fair use to Google's service.

Gary struggled to find what he was looking for.
If only there was a better way...

The first factor looks at what the purpose and character of the secondary use of the work was, i.e. whether Google's use of the copyright protected works was in any way 'transformative'. The Court quickly saw that Google's search capability was highly transformative, as "...the purpose of Google's copying of the... books is to make available significant information about those books, permitting a searcher to identify those that contain a word or term of interest, as well as those that do not include reference to it. In addition, through the ngrams tool, Google allows readers to learn the frequency of usage of selected words in the aggregate corpus of published books in different historical periods". What Google's service allows for users to do is very different than the character and purpose of the books themselves, making their use of the works quite transformative. They also saw that the snippets added something more to the search function, and is in itself also transformative, allowing for a more in-depth assessment of context and relevance when searching for information to the user. Google's commercial motivation did not negate this finding.

The Court determined, briefly, that the second factor (nature of the protected work) played very little part in the assessment of fair use.

When looking at the third factor (the amount and substantiality of what was copied), Judge Leval, handing down the majority's judgment, determined that as no full copies were made available to the public by Google of the scanned books, the search function did not copy a substantial amount. The snippets shown in the results did not, in Judge Level's mind, give enough material to the reader to substitute the protected works, as only very small amounts of text are revealed to each individual user.

Judge Leval finally looked at the fourth factor, assessing the effect of the works' use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted works. Although the Court did recognize that there could be an impact on the works or their potential market, albeit a small one, it still had to be "...a meaningful or significant effect" for there to be an issue under the fourth factor. Even if the snippets display some facts or information, and thus detract from a need to purchase the works, they still offer very little in the form of a substitute to the original works and would not cause much of an impact in the works' potential market.

Google's Books project was therefore deemed to fall under fair use.

What the decision in hand showed us is a clear need for there to be more direct interference in an author's use of a work, and their monetary gain from it through its intended purpose (loosely said, at least). What Google created was a tool, not a substitute, that by no means superseded the original works, but allowed for them to be searched and reviewed partially, while leaving much to the original that needed to be looked through to understand the bigger, more accurate picture. The decision came as no surprise to this writer, as Google Books is nothing more than that, yet still very useful for those seeking to find a snippet of information or a factoid. Whether the matter will go to the Supreme Court remains to be seen, but the Authors' Guild has promised to take the matter further, and this writer will await the granting (or denial) of certiorari by the Supreme Court with interest.

Source: IPKat

Words in Action - Trademarks as Verbs

This writer, for one, will fully admit to often using very well-known brands as the descriptive term for all such items, for example calling all plasters Band-Aids and all cotton-tipped plastic cleaning things (a technical term, undoubtedly) as Q-Tips, regardless of all of those terms having been, or still being, registered trademarks. While my misstep in potentially diluting these valuable brands in using them in this way can be seen as a small error, or even wholly unnoticeable in the grand scheme of things, it still brings light to an issue all trademark holders face; the potential of losing your mark to genericization. While this topic has been discussed on this very blog before quite extensively, the use of trademarks as verbs specifically has been left a bit in the dark, yet is illustrative of a newer problem technology companies especially will face. Who hasn't said they will 'Google' something, or if they will 'Facebook' their aunt Mary; a grave threat the holders of those particular marks will lose sleep over. One such giant facing a recent challenge to its widely recognized trademark is Google, which posed an interesting question to all trademark holders.

The case in question is Elliot v Google Inc, where the claimant, David Elliot, registered over 760 different domain names combining the word 'Google' and another brand or a famous person, for example googledisney.com, or with generic terms such as googletvnews.com. As you might have guessed, Google has trademarked the term 'Google' in a number of variants; two of which were at issue in the case: US trademark 2884502 and 2806075. These two marks encompass the word 'Google' in several categories, such as web indexes and computer software - promptly leading to Google pursuing the domain names through the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Process (UDRP). In his defense Mr. Elliot asserted that the term 'Google' had become generic and could therefore be used by him (and others) without infringing on Google's marks. The domain names Mr. Elliot had registered were transferred to Google in the UDRP, which prompted Mr. Elliot to pursue the matter further in the US District Court of Arizona.

What Mr. Elliot's argument largely states, and what the court had to assess, was whether the term 'Google' had effectively become ubiquitous with the verb 'googling' - defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "[s]earch[ing] for information about (someone or something) on the Internet using the search engine Google" - rendering it generic rather than distinctive as to Google and/or Google's services. As trademarks need to specifically distinguish the origin of goods or services, becoming a generic verb can be the mark's end.

Stacy was unnerved after 'googling' herself

What the court had to determine was whether the mark's "...primary significance" was that of distinguishing the goods or services from other similar ones. The test was phrased well by Justice Brandeis in Kellogg v National Biscuit: "...the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is not the product but the producer". This is highly important, as if a product is named as the major brand (i.e. if you refer to all plasters as 'Band-Aids') in general terms, the mark loses its status as the seal of origin for that brand, or as stated by Justice O'Scannlain in Filipino Yellow Pages: "...if the primary significance of the trademark is to describe the type of product rather than the producer, the trademark is a generic term and cannot be a valid trademark".

Using a trademark as a verb does not automatically change the primary significance of that mark, and a mark, such as 'Google', can be used for both the designation of an origin for goods and services and as a term describing the searching of information via the search engine - noted by the court in the case. This synecdochian dual-functionality of a mark is wholly valid; however, should the perception of the public change drastically as to the meaning of the word, i.e. if most people would believe and/or use the term "to google" to mean using any search engine online to seek information, then the mark can be determined to be compromised, even with this accepted dual-functionality. This was phrased well by Justice McNamee (the name seems more than appropriate considering the case's subject matter): "It is thus contrary to both the letter and spirit of trademark law to strip a mark of legal protection solely because the mark—cultivated by diligent marketing, enforcement, and quality control—has become so strong and widespread that the public adopts the mark to describe that act of using the class of products or services to which the mark belongs". Arguably this argument holds well, and this writer for one agrees wholeheartedly with the court's view, as the stripping of a mark's distinctive nature the moment it becomes even partially descriptive of a class of products or services would run contrary to the value given by trademarks to brands and their place in a given class.

In the end the action failed, as Mr. Elliot failed to demonstrate how the mark 'Google' had turned generic, as the public still strongly perceived it as part and parcel to the company, not just internet search engines or internet searching at large. The case does bring light an important issue, and often something that the general public will not think about; how our daily use of terminology, especially trademarks, can alter their value. Some examples include 'Xerox' (become a term for all photocopying) and 'Thermos' (used as a term for all heat-retaining drinks containers), which have become generic due to their use as the identifying term in a given class. Due to this the International Trademark Association has even issued guidelines on the proper use of trademarks, which most of us will find potentially excessive, yet is quite important. As can be seen, trademarks are a dangerous beast, especially when they become famous to the point of ubiquity; however for most this risk is quite worth it.

Source: JDSupra