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. 

Broken Down and Built Again - AG Szpunar Opines Whether the Decompilation of Computer Programs Infringe Copyright

Hot off the heels of the recent decision in Oracle v Google, copyright protection in computer programming is facing its latest hurdle, which is this time in the European courts. A big aspect of computer software management is the fixing of ever-present errors, be it due to the implementation of the software or the software in isolation. When you encounter such bugs you might have to decompile the program, which, to put simply, means to convert an executable computer program into source code, allowing you to fix errors and then to recompile the program to enable its execution. While decompiling can be used for more nefarious purposes (such as to enable the 'cracking' of protected software), it can allow for the fixing of legitimate issues in licensed copies of software. But, because of this potential nefarious way of using decompilation, would doing so breach copyright? Luckily the CJEU is on the case, but before the main court has looked at the issue Advovate General Szpunar gave his two cents a little while ago.

The case of Top System SA v Belgian State concerned a number of applications developed by Top Systems for the Belgian Selection Office of the Federal Authorities (also called SELOR), including SELOR Web Access and eRecruiting, which is in charge of the selection and orientation of future personnel for the authorities' various public services. Many of the applications developed by Top Systems contained tailor-made components according to SELOR's specifications. In February 2008 Top Systems and SELOR agreed on a set of agreements, one of which concerned the installation and configuration of a new development environment as well as the integration of the sources of SELOR’s applications into, and their migration to, that new environment. As with many projects, there were issues which affected the various applications. Following these problems Top Systems took SELOR (and the Belgian state) to court for copyright infringement due to the decompilation of Top Systems' software. After the usual progression of the matter through the Belgian courts the matter ultimately ended up with the CJEU, and also the desk of the AG. The referring court asked the CJEU two questions. 

The first question asked "...whether Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 permits a lawful acquirer of a computer program to decompile that program where such decompilation is necessary in order to correct errors affecting its functioning". 

The AG first noted that, while computer programs have copyright protection over the reproduction of the program, it is limited due to the nature of how computer programs work (i.e. they need to be reproduced on a computers memory to operate). Strict enforcement would impede consumers' use of computer programs and therefore isn't desirable. The same applies to the protection against alteration. The Directive above does take account of this and sets out that reproduction and alteration of computer programs "...do not require authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the program by the lawful acquirer, including for error correction". However, Article 5 does leave the possibility open to restrict these acts through contractual provisions. 

Even with that being a possibility, the ability to contractually restrict the reproduction or alteration is there, this cannot extend to all such activities, as the acts of loading and running of a computer program necessary for that use may not be prohibited by contract. 

The AG then moved onto the matter of decompilation for the purposes of correcting errors. He agreed with the submissions made by the interested parties in that decompilation is covered by the author's exclusive rights under the Directive, even though there is no express 'decompilation' provision there. 

Gary wanted to fix the software, but his hands were tied...

Although argued by TopSystems, decompilation cannot be excluded from those rights under Article 6 according to the AG (which allows for reproduction and translation of a computer program if it is indispensable for the operation of the program with other programs). The relevant provision therefore remains at Article 5 and 6 will have no bearing on the exclusion of decompilation. Article 6 does not stand as the only instances where it is possible to decompile a computer program.

The AG therefore proposed that the first question be answered as "... Article 5(1)... is to be interpreted as permitting a lawful acquirer of a computer program to decompile that program where that is necessary in order to correct errors affecting its functioning". 

He then moved onto the second question which asked "...in the event that Article 5(1)... were to be interpreted as permitting a lawful acquirer of a computer program to decompile that program where that is necessary in order to correct errors, that decompilation must satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 6 of that directive or, indeed, other requirements". 

Article 6 sets out, as discussed above, the decompilation of a computer program where that is necessary in order to ensure the compatibility of another independently created program with the program. The AG discussed the specific requirements under Article 6, namely that: (i) they only apply to those who have lawfully acquired the program; (ii) the decompilation must be necessary in order for that program to be used in accordance with its intended purpose and for error correction; and (iii) the intervention of the user of the computer program must be necessary from the perspective of the objective pursued. 

In relation to the second condition, the AG noted that an 'error' should be defined as "...a malfunction which prevents the program from being used in accordance with its intended purpose". One has to note that this does not include the amendment and/or improvement of a program, but simply the enabling of the use of the program for its intended purpose. 

On the third condition, the AG specified that, while the decompilation of a program can be necessary, it always isn't. He determined that "...the lawful acquirer of a computer program is therefore entitled, under [Article 5(1)], to decompile the program to the extent necessary not only to correct an error stricto sensu, but also to locate that error and the part of the program that has to be amended". So, a lawful user can decompile a program to both fix and locate any errors, which gives them quite a wide berth in doing so. Nonetheless, the AG noted that the decompiled program cannot be used for other purposes. 

The AG therefore proposed the answer to the second question as "...Article 5(1)… is to be interpreted as meaning that the decompilation of a computer program... by a lawful acquirer, in order to correct errors in that program, is not subject to the requirements of Article 6 of that directive. However, such decompilation may be carried out only to the extent necessary for that correction and within the limits of the acquirer’s contractual obligations". 

The CJEU's decision will be an interesting one and will undoubtedly impact the ability of programmers and companies to decompile computer programs to correct any errors they might find during the use of said programs. It would make sense to allow for their decompilation for this restricted purpose, since without that right major errors could render programs useless until the point when the provider can, and decides to fix those errors. It remains to be seen whether the CJEU will agree with the AG, but it would seem sensible for them to follow his responses. 

Well Red - Louboutin's Red Shoe Sole TM is Registrable, Says CJEU

The build-up with the Louboutin red sole case has been quite extensive and unique in that Advocate General Szpunar had to give not one, but two opinions on the case ahead of the CJEU's decision (discussed more here and here). There was some degree of uproar with the latest opinion, and hence many trademark practitioners have been salivating at the prospect of the CJEU decision, which could have quite a bit of an impact on the current trademarks regime in Europe. With that in mind, the decision has finally been released by the CJEU earlier this week.

Even though the facts of Christian Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV have been discussed extensively on this blog, they are worth revisiting. The matter concerned a trademark registration (TM 0874489) in Benelux for a red colored sole on a women's high-heeled shoe by Christian Louboutin. The mark consisted of the color on the sole of the shoe, but did not take into account the contours of the shoe, which only served an illustrative purpose on the positioning of the mark. Van Haren sold a similar red soled shoe in the Netherlands, for which they were sued by Louboutin for trademark infringement. The mark was contested by Van Haren, and ultimately ended up with the CJEU.

The referring court asked, in essence, "…whether Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that a sign consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a high-heeled shoe… consists exclusively of a ‘shape’, within the meaning of that provision".

Stephanie had to forget her 'totally unique' shoe design
after the decision

The Court initially affirmed that EU legislation generally accepts that the 'shape' of a trademark within the meaning of Article 3(e), means a set of lines or contours that outline the product concerned, potentially excluding any colors that don't have an outline defining said 'shape'. Any marks that merely consist of that shape would be deemed invalid.

Nonetheless, the Court did determine that "…while it is true that the shape of the product or of a part of the product plays a role in creating an outline for the colour, it cannot, however, be held that a sign consists of that shape in the case where the registration of the mark did not seek to protect that shape but sought solely to protect the application of a colour to a specific part of that product". This would exclude any signs that merely apply a color to an apparent shape from the remit of Article 3(e), such as the shoe in the Louboutin trademark.

If the shape of the shoe is excluded from the mark, the Court considered that the mark therefore could not exclusively consist of a shape, as the main element of that sign is a specific colour designated by an internationally recognised identification code (in this instance Pantone 18‑1663TP).

In short, the Court concluded that "…Article 3(1)(e)(iii)… must be interpreted as meaning that a sign consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a high-heeled shoe… does not consist exclusively of a ‘shape’, within the meaning of that provision".

The case is quite important, as the registration of a trademark for a color, excluding any shape that is used to illustrate the placement of the color, would be allowed under the ruling. The decision completely ignored the AG's considerations of reputation and the addition of value through the introduction of the mark, which were the main points that many found contentious. Whether this omission will be challenged in future case law remains to be seen.

A Sole of Color - Louboutin Red Shoe Sole Potentially Possible to Register as TM, Says AG Szpunar

After discussing the Louboutin shoe sole case some time ago, one envisioned the matter going ahead to the CJEU without a hitch. Unbeknownst to this writer, the CJEU decided to assess the case in the Grand Chamber (essentially en banc), and therefore the matter went into further hearings. Having concluded, the case was then passed onto Advocate General Szpunar for his opinion, which he handed down very recently. Even though the AG had given their opinion before, this is still an important consideration ahead of the Grand Chamber decision in the future.

As a quick primer, the case of Christian Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV dealt with a registered Benelux trademark owned by Louboutin (TM No. 0874489) for a high-heeled shoe with a red sole. The mark only encompassed the sole, not the entire shape of the shoe. Van Haren had been selling a similar shoe since 2012, and was sued for trademark infringement by Louboutin. Van Haren then counterclaimed for invalidity.

The crux of the case falls on whether the red sole is a registrable trademark, and therefore enforceable.

In his initial opinion last year the AG considered that a sign combining colour and shape, like the Louboutin red sole, is potentially caught by the prohibition contained in Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95. This meant that the Article should be interpreted as being capable of applying to a sign consisting of the shape of a product and seeking protection for a certain colour. Even so, he did determine that the mark in question should be "…equated with a sign consisting of the shape of the goods and seeking protection for a colour in relation to that shape, rather than one consisting of a colour per se". The ultimate classification of the mark, however, should be made by the referring court, and not the CJEU.

Similarly, the decision on whether the mark exclusively 'gives substantial value' to the goods, which is prevented from being registered under Article 3 above, is for the referring court. The AG did clarify this and considered that the matter "…relates exclusively to the intrinsic value of the shape and must take no account of the attractiveness of the goods… and does not permit the reputation of the mark or its proprietor to be taken into account".

The AG wanted to expand on his considerations on a number of points, including the classification of the mark, applicability of Article 3 and classification of the mark with reference to Article 3.

In his view the shape is not "…wholly abstract or of negligible importance, which could justify the finding that the mark at issue seeks protection for a certain colour per se, without any spatial delimitation". The focus is on the shape of the sole. The AG doubts that the color red can perform the essential function of a trade mark and identify its proprietor where that colour is used out of context, i.e. the shape of the sole. He concluded that, following his earlier opinion, that "…the mark… should be equated with a sign consisting of the shape of the goods and seeking protection for a colour in relation to that shape, rather than as a trade mark consisting of a colour per se".

The AG then moved onto his additional considerations in relation to the applicability of Article 3(1) of the Directive to signs consisting of the shape of the goods and a certain colour.

The point revolved around whether the mark can be classified as a 'position mark' under the Implementing Regulation 2017/1431, and whether this prevents the mark from falling under Article 3(1) of the Directive. As the Article does not define what 'shapes' fall in its remit, position marks would not be excluded from being invalid under the provision. The AG considered that this had no bearing on his earlier opinion.

The second main point dealt with by the AG related to the scope of Article 3(1) when compared to Article 4(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2015/2436.

The 2015 Directive replaced the 2008 Directive, and with no transitional provisions over both, the AG considered that they would cover the same marks (although the former did make changes e.g. to the provisions around the 'own name' defence). The AG determined that any changes would not interfere with the mark's registrability under the 2008 Directive, with Article 3(1) still "…being interpreted to the effect that that provision applies to signs consisting of the shape of the goods which seek protection for a certain colour".

The AG had to then expand on the rationale underlying the ground for refusal or invalidity in Article 3(1).

Following new arguments from both sides, while sympathetic to the pro-registrant argument, the AG set out that, as per the decision in Hauck GmbH & Co KG v Stokke A/S, the assessment to determine whether a shape 'gives substantial value to the goods "…involves account being taken of the average consumer’s perspective [of the aesthetic characteristics]". This perception isn't, however, the decisive element in the assessment, but "…account must be taken both of the perception of the sign at issue by the relevant public and the economic effects which will result from reserving that sign to a single undertaking".

It is important, in the AG's mind, for "…a characteristic to remain available for all market participants over the period during which that characteristic has a particular effect on the value of the goods". Once interest has weaned, it is possible for that characteristic to be registrable as a trademark and not fall under Article 3(1). Unlike the two other prohibitions in Article 3(1), this prohibition is dependent on external factors, e.g. interest and the public's perception of value in the shape, and could catch even a registration of a shape for a certain color.  This would, however, "…exclude the characteristics linked to the reputation of the trade mark or its proprietor" as a part of the assessment. This would shift the assessment from one that includes reputation, to one where the value of the shape of the mark is the only factor that matters, i.e. a more notable brand could still register marks like the sole in question.

In summary: "…the reference to the public’s perception as a factor which, among others, determines the characteristics giving substantial value to the goods argues in favour of Article 3(1)… being interpreted as meaning that that provision applies to signs consisting of the shape of the goods and seeking protection for a colour in relation to that shape".

Finally, the AG moved onto the classification of the mark with reference to Article 3(1)(b) of the 2008 Directive.

The AG considered that this would be useful for the CJEU in case they find that Article 3(1)(e) cannot be applied in this case. In summary, the AG determined that "…when analysing the distinctive character of a sign which is indissociable from the appearance of the goods in question, it is necessary to assess whether the registration of that sign would run counter to the general interest that the availability of the characteristics represented by that sign should not be unduly restricted for other operators offering for sale goods or services of the same type. However, Article 3(1)(b)… cannot fully assume the role of Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of that directive, since it is possible to derogate from that first provision in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in Article 3(3) of that directive". This means that, when assessing a mark's distinctiveness under Article 3(1)(b) that cannot be separated from the goods it is used on (like the bottom sole of a shoe), one has to keep in mind whether it could be an anti-competitive registration of goods of a similar type.

The opinion lays down the foundation for the CJEU's decision later this year, but doesn't by any means close the door on Louboutin's registration. Ultimately this will be determined by the guidelines set by the CJEU, and should the proprietor's reputation be separated from the assessment of value, it is possible for the mark to not be invalid under Article 3(1). This writer keenly awaits the CJEU's decision, as it will undoubtedly have a big impact on similar registrations in the future.

Walking the Online Plank - Advocate General Szpunar Sets the Scene for Blocking Infringing Websites

Peer-to-peer file sharing has had its enemies since its very beginning, especially when used for sharing either protected or non-protected works online. A particular offender in the former category is the infamous Pirate Bay website, which shares hyperlinks to files known as 'torrent' files, which contain metadata on the files, linking a variety of peers (i.e. file sharers) with others wishing to download said file, and deliver pieces of the file using the P2P protocol. The fight against the Pirate Bay as an intermediary has been going on for a very long time, and the matter has been winding its way through the EU courts as well. While the CJEU has yet to rule on the matter, Advocate General Szpunar handed down his opinion before the CJEU's determination on this long-standing matter.

The case of Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV concerned Stichting Brein, a Dutch organization that focusses on combatting the illegal exploitation of copyright protected works, and to protect the interests of rights holders. Ziggo BV and the other defendant, XS4ALL Internet BV, are Dutch internet service providers who largely control the Dutch market. Stichting Brein took the ISPs to court, applying to compel the ISPs block all internet access to the Pirate Bay under the Dutch transposition of Article 8 of the InfoSoc Directive.

What the CJEU had to answer were two questions that the Court summarized as follows: "… the referring court raises in reality the matter of the liability of operators of indexing sites of peer-to-peer networks for copyright infringements committed in the context of the use of those networks. Can those operators themselves be regarded as being the originators of those infringements, which would mean they are directly liable (first question)? Or, even if they are not directly liable, can an order be made blocking access to their websites, which, as I shall explain below, requires a form of indirect liability (second question)?"

The first aspect of the larger question is whether the provision of indexed metadata relating to P2P files through a search engine is a communication to the public. As has been firmly established, a communication to the public comprises of two criteria, in essence (1) an act of communication and (2) it is made to a public.

The Advocate General first set out the basics, where an 'act of communication' emphasises the essential role of the player originating the communication and the deliberate nature of their intervention (including full knowledge of the consequences of their actions), without which the customer would not have gained access to the work and therefore does. The nature of the communication is also important, with rights holders also being able to prevent the infringement even if the communication, at the choosing of the end-user, hasn't taken place yet.

A 'public' is one where the communication is intended for an indeterminate, but fairly large number of recipients; however, as was discussed in Svensson, the public has to be a new one, and the provision content to the entire internet would not necessarily amount to a 'new' public. Even If provided for the internet at large, you still have to consider the intention of the communicator and the public it wanted to reach during the communication.  If the communication is made without the authorization of the rights holder, it's clearly made to a new public they didn't consider, making the public a 'new' one for this purpose.

Online piracy is real and scary

The AG then moved onto the actual application of the above to P2P networks. In his view, a copyright protected work would be communicated to the public via a P2P network, as; firstly, the works are made available on the computers of the network users, so any other user can download them; Secondly, the amount of users in P2P networks and using the Pirate Bay clearly would be an undefined and significant number of persons; and lastly, as no consent was given by the rights holder to share the works on these systems or websites, the works have been distributed to  a 'new public', since "if the author of the work has not consented to it being shared on a peer-to-peer network, the users of that network constitute by definition a new public". While this amounts to a clear communication to the public, the AG had to still decide, in his opinion, who the works originated from (i.e. the users or the indexing website).

The role of the indexing websites was also deemed necessary by the AG, since "...[infringing] works would not be accessible and the operation of the network would not be possible or would at any rate be much more complex and its use less efficient" without them. He also highlighted the need for knowledge by the website operators, and specified that "...from the moment that operator has knowledge of the fact that making available took place in breach of copyright and does not take action to render access to the work in question impossible, its conduct may be regarded as being intended to allow, expressly, the continuation of the illegal making available of that work and, hence, as an intentional action". The website operators' intervention is therefore necessary and deliberate (at least in the instances as detailed above), meaning the operators would be jointly with the user making the works available and thus communicating them to the public.

The AG then moved onto the second question, discussing the need to block access to websites such as the Pirate Bay (albeit only in the instance should the CJEU disagree with his answer to the first question).

In his view, Article 8 presupposes a link between the infringement and the subject of the injunction, meaning the services of the intermediary are used to facilitate the infringement happening through the website in question. He concluded that, in the light of this dependant relationship, the intermediary has to prevent access to the site to protect itself from liability.

He also added that this would not, potentially at least, impinge on the users' fundamental rights. The blocking of websites like the Pirate Bay would be proportionate to the significance and seriousness of the copyright infringements committed on that site. The block would also not prevent legitimate uses of P2P technologies, or the finding of legally shared files online. The measures themselves, ultimately, will have to be "...proportionate to the significance and seriousness of the copyright infringements committed, which is a matter for the national court to determine".

The AG's opinion sets the scene for the CJEU, and clearly will envision the decision going the way of the rights holders. Admittedly, this would seem like the most logical solution to a complex and difficult problem to tackle; however, measures would indeed have to be proportionate and non-restricting to the public at large. This writer would envision a possible avalanche of blocking injunctions being pushed after a decision to the affirmative; however, an EU-wide block seems highly unlikely, as application has to be done on a national basis.

Source: IPKat