NEWS Web filtering “not a fair balance”: CJEU
Te Court of Justice for the EU (CJEU) has ruled that copyright holders cannot ask Internet service providers (ISPs) to filter out illegal content.
Te CJEU delivered its preliminary ruling in Scarlet Extended SA v Sabam et al in November 2011.
Sabam, a Belgian company responsible for authorising music rights, discovered in 2004 that ISP Scarlet’s subscribers were downloading its content illegally using peer-to-peer networks on the Internet.
Sabam complained and the Brussels Court of First Instance ordered Scarlet to use web- filtering technology to prevent its subscribers from exchanging files that infringe copyright over the Internet.
Te ISP appealed against this decision. It said that the injunction obligated it to monitor communications on its network and so was incompatible with the E-Commerce Directive.
Te Brussels Court of Appeals referred the matter to the CJEU. It asked the CJEU to clarify whether a national court could order an ISP through injunctive relief to install a system for filtering all electronic communications so that illegal files could be identified.
Te CJEU found that copyright owners could not seek an injunction that would violate a limitation
in the E-Commerce Directive, which prohibits national authorities from adopting measures that would require an ISP to carry out general monitoring of information that is transmitted on its network, according the CJEU.
Te CJEU added that fundamental rights such as IP protection have to be balanced with the rights of ISPs to conduct business and the rights of ISP subscribers to have their personal data protected.
In its judgment, the CJEU concluded: “It must be held that, in adopting the injunction requiring the ISP to install the contested filtering system, the national court concerned would not be respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, on the other.”
In a statement, Sabam said that authors were “worried about the decision”, adding that it will be looking at alternative courses of action for combating online copyright infringement and protecting authors and their works.
ISPs are pleased with the CJEU’s ruling. Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) secretary general Nicholas Lansman said: “The ISPA welcomes the European ruling that ISPs cannot be required to engage in
Apple refuses to be a pushover
iPhone maker Apple has gained control of seven explicit domain names that include its famous iPhone trademark.
Te company filed a complaint against a then- unknown company that owned seven explicit domain names, including
iphonesex4s.com, with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Te domain names pointed to websites for mobile pornography services.
Te owner of the domain names was protected by whois privacy. However, this was later removed to reveal that an Israeli company owned the domain names.
Apple’s WIPO complaint now lists the case as terminated and the domain names have been transferred to brand protection company MarkMonitor.
retailer Amazon in their long-running battle over the right to use the term App Store to describe an online distribution service for mobile applications.
Apple filed its complaint against Apple in a US district court in March 2011. It argued that Amazon’s mobile application developer program and download service constitutes unauthorised use of its App Store trademark, which the US Patent and Trademark Office granted in January 2011 and is currently being opposed by Microsoſt.
Amazon as it targets the Kindle Fire, Amazon’s e-reader device. Te amended complaint stated that Amazon changed Amazon Appstore for Android to Amazon Appstore in its advertising for the Kindle Fire in a bid to deceive customers and lessen the goodwill associated with Apple’s App Store service.
Apple suffered a setback in the case when a US district court judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction that would have prevented Amazon from using the App Store term.
Apple has also amended its complaint against online Te company has now amended its complaint against Te case is due to go to trial in October 2012. n 12 Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 1
www.worldipreview.com
large scale filtering and blocking of all users’ communications.
“ISPA believes that such a system would have been disproportionate and restricted the innovation and growth of the Internet at a time when its contribution to the economic recovery is vital.”
Te case has now been referred back to the Brussels Court of Appeals. n
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60