Reposted from July 2013 issue of DLA Piper’s Sports, Media and Entertainment Intelligence

By Giulio Coraggio

The Court of Palermo (Italy) held that Google as an hosting provider is not obliged to monitor the AdWords keywords selected by its users. The court did find liability for a local rental company, Sicily by Car, for the usage of the trademark “maggiore” held by a major rental company, Maggiore Rent SpA. This was only when done in connection with the usage of AdWords “dynamic keyword insertion” tool allowing to show the selected keyword as ad text in the sponsored link when users were searching such term.


Continue Reading

Reposted from DLA Piper’s Media & Sport Group Bulletin

Editorial Team: Nick FitzpatrickDuncan Calow and Patrick Mitchell

Google has filed a motion to dismiss the Authors Guild and the American Society of Media Photographers as plaintiffs in the Google Books copyright infringement claim.

The long running US Google books case emerged out of two separate law suits: one filed by the American Authors Guild (“the Authors Guild”) on behalf of authors and the other by the Association of American Publishers along with five separate publishers (for more details please see the April 2011 and October 2011 editions of Media Intelligence here and here).


Continue Reading

Reposted from DLA Piper’s Media & Sport Group Bulletin

Editorial Team: Nick FitzpatrickDuncan Calow and Patrick Mitchell

The High Court has ruled that Google did not have “actual knowledge” of defamatory material where complaints were not “sufficiently precise and well substantiated”.

On 25 November 2011 the High Court ruled in favour of Google; setting aside an order that permitted the US company to be served out of the jurisdiction in defamation proceedings. The Court ruled that the claimant, former UK intelligence adviser Andrea Davison, had failed to show a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction or that Google had actual knowledge of unlawful activity on the blog that it hosted.


Continue Reading

Reposted from DLA Piper’s Law à la Mode Edition 4 – Winter 2011

By:  Michael K. Barron, Sarah Phillips and Nadea Taylor (Boston and London)
“AdWords,” the paid, subscription-based Google referencing service which allows users to advertise their companies alongside Google search results, has recently been the subject of much legal scrutiny.  In late September, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) gave a preliminary ruling on questions referred to it by the English High Court in the case between Interflora and Marks & Spencer (“M&S”), regarding the purchase by M&S of the Google AdWord “Interflora” and other similar AdWords. 
In answering the questions referred to it, the ECJ repeated much of the recent jurisprudence in this area, in particular from the Google France case.  Previous cases established that purchasing a third parties’ trademark as an AdWord would only amount to trademark infringement if such use would have an adverse effect on one of the functions of the trademark.  
The ECJ gave the following guidance on how national courts should assess whether the use by a third party of a sign identical with a trademark in relation to identical goods or services has an adverse affect on one of the functions of the trademark:

By: Michael K. Barron, Sarah Phillips and Nadea Taylor (Boston and London)

“AdWords,” the paid, subscription-based Google referencing service which allows users to advertise their companies alongside Google search results, has recently been the subject of much legal scrutiny.  In late September, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) gave a preliminary ruling on questions referred to it by the English High Court in the case between Interflora and Marks & Spencer (“M&S”), regarding the purchase by M&S of the Google AdWord “Interflora” and other similar AdWords. 

In answering the questions referred to it, the ECJ repeated much of the recent jurisprudence in this area, in particular from the Google France case.  Previous cases established that purchasing a third parties’ trademark as an AdWord would only amount to trademark infringement if such use would have an adverse effect on one of the functions of the trademark.  


Continue Reading

Reposted from DLA Piper’s Media & Sport Group Bulletin

Editorial Team: Nick FitzpatrickDuncan Calow and Patrick Mitchell

The copyright infringement suit filed in New York alleges “widespread and unauthorized reproduction and distribution of millions of copyright books” by five universities and the HathiTrust through cooperation agreements entered into with Google Inc.
The copyright infringement suit filed on 12 September 2011 by the Authors Guild, two international writers groups and eight authors, alleges that the universities and HathiTrust (a large-scale collaborative repository of digital content from research libraries) are violating copyrights by scanning, duplicating and distributing their books. The plaintiffs are particularly concerned by the plan by HathiTrust to make available a small number of ‘orphan works’, where no author or publisher can be located.

The copyright infringement suit filed in New York alleges “widespread and unauthorized reproduction and distribution of millions of copyright books” by five universities and the HathiTrust through cooperation agreements entered into with Google Inc.

The copyright infringement suit filed on 12 September 2011 by the Authors Guild, two international writers groups and eight authors, alleges that the universities and HathiTrust (a large-scale collaborative repository of digital content from research libraries) are violating copyrights by scanning, duplicating and distributing their books. The plaintiffs are particularly concerned by the plan by HathiTrust to make available a small number of ‘orphan works’, where no author or publisher can be located.


Continue Reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ALERT

By Siân CroxonJohn Wilks, and Damian Herrington

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has given its ruling in the long-running Interflora v Marks & Spencer Adwords case. The CJEU has followed the Advocate General’s opinion on this case and its own ruling in Google France by stating that trade mark owners can prohibit the purchase of their trade marks as keywords on web search engines, if the advertisements triggered do not allow users to ascertain the origin of the goods or services referred to in such advertisements. The ruling will be of particular significance to brand owners which – like Interflora – operate through a network of independent commercial enterprises. While the decision is largely beneficial to such brand owners, the Court’s new guidance on the ‘investment function’ of a trade mark leaves open the possibility that some businesses will be able to continue to reserve competitors’ trade marks as Adwords without being liable. The Court has left much of the application of its guidance to the case for the national court. The case will now go back to the English High Court for its final determination based on the judgment.


Continue Reading