Reposted from Sports, Media and Entertainment Online

By Keitaro Uzawa and Ann Cheung

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan (“METI“) recently revised the Interpretative Guidelines on Electronic Commerce and Information Property Trading (“Guidelines“), which apply to all online business operations in Japan and clarify how the Civil Code, which governs Japanese commercial contracts, and other relevant laws, such as the Act on Special Provisions to the Civil Code Concerning Electronic Consumer Contracts and Electronic Acceptance Notice (Act No. 95 of 2001) (“Electronic Contract Act“) and the Act on Specified Commercial Transactions (Act No. 57 of 1976), are applied to various legal issues relating to electronic commerce and information property trading.


Continue Reading

Reposted from Data Protection, Privacy and Security Alert

By Michael Malloy and Pavel Arievich

There has been an important development in Russian Data Protection Law. On July 22, 2014 a new law amending the law on data protection and law on information was signed off by the Russian President and thus was officially adopted. The law, will come into force on September 1. 2016.


Continue Reading

A bulletin from the Media & Sport Group at DLA Piper

GAMING & BETTING

Betfair files complaint with the EC over newly passed Cypriot laws that ban betting exchanges

This legal action challenges the Cypriot legislature’s unanimous move to prohibit betting exchanges and online casino games.

Betfair, the leading online betting exchange, filed a formal complaint with the European Commission (Commission) on 10 September 2012 in relation to recently passed Cypriot gambling legislation. This new legislation was passed in July of this year, the most fundamental feature of which is the prohibition of online casino (including poker) and betting exchanges. Therefore, only sports betting (other than exchanges) are permitted.


Continue Reading

Reposted from DLA Piper’s Media Intelligence Bulletin

Editorial Team: Nick Fitzpatrick, Duncan Calow and Patrick Mitchell

The Department of Justice has published a landmark legal opinion that could pave the way for internet gambling in the United States.

On 20 September 2011, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel reached its decision on whether the proposals by the states of Illinois and New York to use the internet and out-of-state transaction processors to sell lottery tickets to in-state citizens would violate the Wire Act 1961 (the “Wire Act”). The Wire Act prohibits wagering over telecommunications systems that cross state or national borders, therefore preventing use of the internet by states to sell lottery tickets even to adults within their own borders.


Continue Reading

Reposted from DLA Piper’s Media Intelligence Bulletin

Editorial Team: Nick FitzpatrickDuncan Calow and Patrick Mitchell

Peter Frampton has filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group (“Universal Music”) in respect of unpaid music royalties.

Peter Frampton filed a suit on 23 December 2011 against record label Universal Music for half a million pounds worth of unpaid music royalties and unspecified damages, making him the latest artist to make a claim against a record label in respect of digital royalties.


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