Posted on

Appeals Court Vacates Summary Judgment in Viacom v. YouTube

Back in December of 2010, after a previous ruling against Viacom in the billion-dollar copyright infringement case brought by Viacom (Viacom Appeals Google/YouTube Ruling) Legal Bytes reported that three legal scholars filed a brief in support of Viacom’s appeal, stating that “the central issue in this case are the legal tests for contributory and vicarious liability for copyright infringement from the use of Internet sites – in this instance, the YouTube site – to reproduce and disseminate large amounts of copyrighted material without authorization from copyright owners.” The U.S. District Court had previously ruled in favor of YouTube and Google, holding them protected against claims of copyright infringement by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Today, in ruling on the appeal, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals essentially breathed new life into Viacom’s case, remanding it back to the lower court and instructing the District Court judge to determine whether YouTube had knowledge of specific infringing material and willfully blinded itself to that knowledge.

The ruling vacates the District Court’s summary judgment against Viacom, noting the facts might be interpreted by a reasonable jury in a way that would not exonerate or exculpate YouTube from liability. In his opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes wrote: "We conclude that the District Court correctly held that the 512(c) safe harbor requires knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity, but we vacate the order granting summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website."

As we have over the years, Legal Bytes will continue to monitor developments in this complex, high stakes litigation involving significant intellectual property issues in our online and digital world. If you would like further information, feel free to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.

Posted on

Adwords Add Nauseum – What if the Jabberwock Wrote Blogs

The Adword Lawsuit

Now D (Defendant) buys competitor’s words from a search engine, you see.
What words do they buy? Just brands that are popular – with you and with me.
They buy words I might search for when I am looking for thee. 
When we search for P’s (Plaintiff) product, they also find me.
D’s product and brand pops up with such glee; a sponsored link for consumers to see.

Now P gets really mad, call the lawyers, they do,
P’s marketers scream loudly, "Go sue, yes, let’s sue."
So do what they might and do what they may,
The lawyers do sue, in court we shall have our day! 

But wait just a moment, says the court to party P,
In order to win, two things prove for me,
Did D "use the mark in commerce" for all the world to see
And can you prove that buyers, from deception and confusion are free?

Well maybe I can and maybe I can’t, says P not quite funny.
But Your Honor, you do know I’ve invested huge sums of money.
With branding and ads placed in time and in space, 
How can D be permitted to stand in my place? If a "mark" I invest in, an intellectual property right,
Surely you will protect my investment before calling it a night!

Not so, sayeth the court and much to Plaintiff’s fright.
‘Tis only deception we courts should set right.
The mark is intellectual and property we know,
But in "adword" competition, deception is as far as we go.
So P left the stage, bloodied but resolved to fight another day,
But so far and at this point, the Ninth Circuit says "no way."

 

The English Translation

Consider the case of Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts [No. 10-55840 (9th Cir. 3/8/11)]. Network Automation sells scheduling and management software under the brand name AutoMate. Its competitor, Advanced Systems Concepts, has a product called ActiveBatch. Now in 2009, Network Automation purchased keywords, including "ActiveBatch," from Google and Bing. When consumers searched for "ActiveBatch," the displayed results carried a sponsored link to Network Automation’s website. Naturally, Advanced Systems demanded Network Automation stop using its name as an advertising keyword, claiming the use infringed its intellectual property rights. Network Automation refused and Advanced Systems sued.

In order to prevail, traditional trademark law says Advanced Systems must show that the mark was "used in commerce" and that consumers of these competitive products are likely to be confused. I won’t bore you with the legal machinations leading up the ruling last week, but first the Ninth Circuit clearly joins the Second Circuit in stating the purchase of adwords is "use in commerce" for purposes of trademark law (the Second Circuit made a strong statement to that effect in Rescuecom v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123, 127 (2d Cir. 2009)). But what about the likelihood of confusion?

Here, Advanced Systems failed to convince the court that a "sophisticated" Internet consumer (the target consumer for this product) was likely to be confused by the keyword advertising strategy. "A sophisticated consumer of business software exercising a high degree of care is more likely to understand the mechanics of Internet search engines and the nature of sponsored links, whereas an un-savvy consumer exercising less care is more likely to be confused," the ruling states.

While intellectual property lawyers will themselves review the Ninth Circuit’s distinction between the Sleekraft factors used to determine likelihood of confusion (named from AMF, Inc. v. Sleekraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979)) and those used in the Brookfield case (Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)), you should know the Ninth Circuit felt the right factors to consider in competitive adword cases are: strength of the mark, evidence of actual confusion, type of goods, the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser, and the appearance of the ads and surrounding context on the screen displaying the results. 

But wait a minute. If the brand owner has invested significant time and money building brand recognition and a strong mark, shouldn’t it be entitled to protection? Put another way, if a trademark is intellectual PROPERTY, don’t I have the right to protect my asset and not give the alleged "infringer" a free ride on my investment? Well the Ninth Circuit seems to be saying "no, you don’t." 

The court reasoned that trademark law focuses on protecting the consumer (and correspondingly the trademark owner) from the likelihood of confusion. Even though, over the past decade (inspired by cases like Brookfield), companies sought to emphasize the "property" aspect of their marks – protecting their investment and asset value – this court feels that is not the right approach. With this ruling, the Ninth Circuit appears to dismiss the property or asset "value" and investment argument, and makes a fairly clear statement that the rationale for protecting trademarks and the basis of permissible legal action still remains consumer deception and confusion. "Did D ‘use the mark in commerce’ for all the world to see, and can you prove that buyers, from deception and confusion are free."

For these judicial combatants, it means Network Automation can keep advertising on search engines using keywords that include the name of Advanced Systems and its products. Want to read the case for yourself? You can download your own personal copy and read the entire Ninth Circuit decision in this case right here: Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts. Need help? Contact me or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.

Posted on

Digital Media – Recent IP Developments and More

On Thursday, February 10, 2011, Rimon’s own Emily Kirsch and Brad Newberg will be presenting a seminar entitled: Practical Implications of Recent Developments in Digital Media. The seminar will provide practical, real-world guidance to content owners and users, ISPs – actually, any enterprise with a website and content (that’s all of you, right?), speaking about the rapidly developing law of rights, responsibilities and liabilities arising from activity on the Internet:

  • Recent developments in safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
  • Copyright fair use and the Internet
  • Keyword search advertising
  • Morphing of trademark uses – what’s fair and what’s not – from metatags to invisible text

This CLE/CPD-eligible course (2.0 credits; Practice Skills and Knowledge) is available for attorneys (experienced and transitional) admitted in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California and Illinois, as well as in the UK. Those of you licensed in Delaware and Virginia, we can apply for you if needed – let us know. This course will only be presented LIVE in our New York office at 4 p.m., February 10; and since it will not be broadcast in either audio or video, you will need to be present to attend and get credit. 

Of course, a reception for the attendees will follow the course. How good is that – wisdom, credit and munchies! So if you are a client of the firm (or are willing to become one) and you want to register, don’t call me. Contact Anna Farhadian by email at afarhadian@rimonlaw.com or by telephone at +1 212 702 1399. 

If you would prefer to register directly, just select this REGISTER link to be taken to the registration page. See you there!

Posted on

Amici Curiae Brief Filed in Viacom v. YouTube Appeal

In August we reported that Viacom intended to appeal the U.S. District Court ruling in favor of YouTube and Google in the billion-dollar copyright infringement case brought by Viacom (Viacom Appeals Google/YouTube Ruling). As you may recall, the federal court decided YouTube is protected against claims of copyright infringement by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If you have not yet read the original text of the District Court decision, you can read and/or download it from Legal Bytes (Federal Court Awards YouTube Summary Judgment in Viacom Copyright Infringement Case).

Regardless of your perspective, this continues to be a closely watched legal battle, with significant implications in the determinations made by the court – not only because of the stature of the parties, but also because the issues implicate so much of the content-related activity on the Internet and the interpretation of the seminal U.S. statute that applies – the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Earlier this week, three academic legal scholars filed a brief in support of the Viacom entities, stating that "the central issue in this case are the legal tests for contributory and vicarious liability for copyright infringement from the use of Internet sites – in this instance, the YouTube site – to reproduce and disseminate large amounts of copyrighted material without authorization from copyright owners." The brief presents interesting and thoughtful insights into the law of copyright and protection of intellectual property rights in this age of digital information and content. If you would like to read the brief, you can download your own copy right here: Brief of Amici Curiae Stuart N. Brotman, Ronald A. Cass, and Raymond T. Nimmer In Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Legal Bytes will continue to monitor developments and post significant materials that we hope will stimulate your thinking, and increase your appreciation of the complexity of the issue and the stakes in this intellectual property battle. If you would like further information, feel free to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.

Posted on

Spanish Court Dismisses Copyright Action Against YouTube

In June, Legal Bytes reported [Federal Court Awards YouTube Summary Judgment in Viacom Copyright Infringement Case]that a United States federal court ruled in favor of YouTube and Google in the billion-dollar case brought by Viacom on a summary judgment motion. Just last month, we again reported that Viacom had filed notice of its intention to appeal that ruling [Viacom Appeals Google/YouTube Ruling], and a companion article written by Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum [Viacom Appeals YouTube Copyright Ruling] has been posted on the Media & Entertainment Newsletter of the International Law Office.

Now in Spain, the Spanish Federal Court sitting in Madrid has dismissed charges brought by the Spanish broadcasting company Telecinco (Gestevision Telecinco SA), alleging that YouTube was liable for copyright infringement resulting from users uploading content and material that infringed the copyright of others. Mediaset, the Italian company that is the majority shareholder of Telecinco, is also involved in a copyright infringement action involving such video uploads, although no ruling has yet issued in that case. The ruling from the Spanish Federal Court comes on the heels of a ruling at the end of last year in France that found Google guilty of copyright infringement, but in that case, books were being scanned and excerpts put online without first obtaining permission or consent from the copyright owner. That said, earlier this month, a court in Germany ruled against Google, holding it liable for videos that were subject to the copyright of others and uploaded on YouTube.

The Spanish court essentially agreed with YouTube’s argument that it is a content-hosting platform, not directly responsible for content uploaded or posted by others. Without appearing flippant, Legal Bytes notes that, similar to Viacom’s decision to appeal the ruling in the United States, everyone who is on the losing side of these battles is (or has indicated an intention of) appealing the ruling against them.

Need to understand user-generated content, uploading videos or other content, rights of authors, and creators of content, and understand them in multiple jurisdictions around the world?  Contact Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work. We can help.

Posted on

Viacom Appeals YouTube Copyright Ruling

The U.S. Media & Entertainment Newsletter of the International Law Office (ILO) has published an adaptation of the original Legal Bytes posting by Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum discussing the appeal by Viacom of the ruling in favor of YouTube and Google in the billion-dollar case brought by Viacom. You can download or view a copy of the ILO publication, "Viacom appeals Google/YouTube ruling", and you can view the original Legal Bytes posting, Viacom Appeals Google/YouTube Ruling.

Posted on

Viacom Appeals Google/YouTube Ruling

Just over a month ago, Legal Bytes reported [Federal Court Awards YouTube Summary Judgment in Viacom Copyright Infringement Case] that a federal court ruled in favor of YouTube and Google in the billion-dollar case brought by Viacom on a summary judgment motion. The court decided YouTube is protected against claims of copyright infringement by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”).

We also told you that we haven’t heard the last of this case, since immediately after the ruling was announced, Michael Fricklas, Viacom Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, noted, “This case has always been about whether intentional theft of copyrighted works is permitted under existing law and we always knew that the critical underlying issue would need to be addressed by courts at the appellate levels. Today’s decision accelerates our opportunity to do so.”

Consistent with that announcement, Viacom has now filed its notice to appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Southern District of New York. Many legal scholars feel that in this case, the District Court opinion will be very persuasive; one never knows until the appellate court has rendered its decision. Stay tuned. If you did not read the original District Court decision, you can read and download it through the original posting on Legal Bytes: [Federal Court Awards YouTube Summary Judgment in Viacom Copyright Infringement Case].

Posted on

Federal Court Awards YouTube Summary Judgment in Viacom Copyright Infringement Case

Yesterday, the federal court hearing the billion-dollar case brought by Viacom against YouTube and Google ruled in favor of Google and YouTube on a summary judgment motion, deciding that YouTube is protected against claims of copyright infringement by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”), since it promptly sought to comply with the DMCA by removing protected content when notified of it.

The federal court held that under the law, if service providers were required to try to determine what content is infringing, or if service providers were held liable because they know infringement is rampant in the industry, or that users routinely post infringing materials, it “would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA.” Only Congress has the power to decide to alter or reallocate the burden of copyright protection from the rights holder (i.e., the copyright owner) to the service provider. In examining that question, the court stated that where such a huge volume of works are posted by others, the service provider “cannot by inspection determine whether the use has been licensed by the owner, or whether its posting” is a “fair use” of the material, or even whether its copyright owner or licensee objects to its posting. The DMCA is explicit: it shall not be construed to condition “safe harbor” protection on “a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity . . . .” Under the DMCA, if one has no notice of infringement and innocently publishes infringing content, until knowledge is shown – by “take down” notice or otherwise – a passive service provider platform would generally not be liable for intellectual property infringement.

It’s unlikely you have heard the end of this lawsuit. In a statement posted yesterday by Michael Fricklas, Viacom Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, Viacom noted that, “This case has always been about whether intentional theft of copyrighted works is permitted under existing law and we always knew that the critical underlying issue would need to be addressed by courts at the appellate levels. Today’s decision accelerates our opportunity to do so.”

You can read and download the court’s entire decision right here.

Posted on

French Connection: Google’s AdWords Clipped by Louis Vuitton

Over five years ago, in early 2004, luxury fashion designer Louis Vuitton sued Google in connection with the sale of search-related advertising.  You will recall the company behind the Louis Vuitton brands and many others (LVMH Moët Hennessy • Louis Vuitton S.A., usually shortened to LVMH) has been very aggressive in policing and protecting its marks on eBay and other Internet sites.  The Paris District Court held that Google was engaged in trademark infringement, unfair competition and misleading advertising.  The Paris Court of Appeals subsequently ordered Google (and its French subsidiary) to pay €300,000 in damages. When those rulings were announced, a spokesperson for Louis Vuitton, praising the Court’s decision, said, “It was absolutely unthinkable that a company like Google be authorized, in the scope of its advertising business, to sell the Louis Vuitton trademark to third parties, specifically to Web sites selling counterfeits.”  The remarks went on to state, “This milestone ruling grants protection for the first time to both consumers and brand owners” adding that Louis Vuitton believed the Court’s finding meant that Google’s services were “misleading advertising services.”

Google appealed, and today the European Court of Justice (ECJ) released its ruling on appeal of that decision.  For you purists in the audience, procedurally within the ECJ, the decision is one in respect of the Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, in the proceedings captioned Google France SARL, Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08), Google France SARL v. Viaticum SA, Luteciel SARL (C-237/08), and Google France SARL v. Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL, Pierre-Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin, Tiger SARL (C-238/08).

The case essentially asks whether Internet search providers can be liable for trademark infringement when selling ‘keywords’ that are based upon the trademarks of another.  The ECJ ruling doesn’t completely immunize or exonerate Google, nor does it leave advertisers defenseless either, but it does in effect give the green light to Google and other search providers to continue to offer keywords to bidders; there had been concern in Europe that a negative judgment from the ECJ would have brought all such services to a halt.  The decision takes a now familiar, “let’s examine if you do more than just sell the trademark as a keyword at the request of the advertiser” approach.

So, if all an Internet search company such as Google is doing is selling keywords, the decision appears to allow Google to do so, despite a showing of confusion by consumers.  But – as those of you advertisers and marketing professionals who are tuned in to AdWords’ algorithmically driven ‘suggestions’ will know – Google’s program actually suggests keywords derived from previous selections. So Google’s AdWords code might suggest “British Airways” as related to “Virgin Atlantic” or “Ryanair” or, as in this case, “imitation” or “fake” coupled with “handbags” as a keyword related to “Louis Vuitton.” Not merely passively selling an existing word or mark and more actively engaging in the ‘suggestion’ process, in the Court’s view, consequently attaches liability.

By analogy, one can rationalize such a decision with similar rulings in the United States under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) or more directly under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).  In the case of the DMCA, if one has no notice of infringement and innocently publishes infringing content, until knowledge is shown – by ‘take down’ notice or otherwise – a passive distributor would generally not be held liable for intellectual property infringement.  Similarly, the CDA distinguishes between those who participate in the content creation process and those who merely distribute (the traditional news media distinction between editor/publishers and newsstand/distributors).

Under the instant ruling by the ECJ, although simply purchasing a keyword would not seem to constitute a per se legal violation in the EU, some rather arcane wording by the ECJ seems to suggest that advertisers (not necessarily the search provider) could now be held liable for trademark infringement resulting from their keyword purchase if their advertising can be shown to be confusing to consumers.  Thus, courts in the EU will now be examining both the appearance of the advertising and its demonstrable or likely effect on consumers.  One of our Associates, Drew Boortz, who follows these developments, notes that we are not aware of any U.S. case that has delved this deeply into keyword sales.  While there are trademark and advertising cases that deal with “use in commerce,” the eight or nine recent cases against Google directly involving keywords are yet to come up for trial (e.g., Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., U.S. federal complaint filed on July 10, 2009 in the Eastern District of Virginia; scheduled for trial in May).

Chris Hackford in our London office notes that trademark owners will no doubt be a little disgruntled after this ECJ judgment, as they will have to continue to bid on their own registered trademarks in order to ensure that they remain at the top of the listings.

If you want to form your own view of the ECJ decision, you can read it right here: Louis Vuitton v. Google; or you can call Rimon for help.  Our offices in Paris, as well as London, Munich and Piraeus in the EU, stand ready to assist; and, of course, you can contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, in New York; Chris Hackford in London; Drew Boortz in our Washington, D.C. office; or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.

Posted on

Are There Clouds in Your Future?

Check out MediaPost’s SearchBlog yesterday (A Dream Cloud Computes The Future), which recounts the conversation Joe Rosenbaum had with reporter and blogger Laurie Sullivan about the future of cloud computing. Need to know more about the legal implications and issues? Call Joseph I. (“Joe”) Rosenbaum or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.