NEWS
When he was elected president in May 2012, Francois Hollande suggested he would either cut or revise Hadopi, which his predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy pushed through in 2009.
Although the latest developments are
unsurprising given Hollande’s stance towards Hadopi, partner at Field Fisher Waterhouse in
Paris, Bruno Ducoulombier, said it is too early to judge its effectiveness.
“Tis organisation is too young. A few years ago, everybody used to say the Uniform Domain- Name Dispute Resolution Policy would be useless. Tat is not the case any more.
“Yes, it is too expensive, but it’s extremely difficult to say unless you compare it to other independent organisations, such as the data protection body in France.”
Ducoulombier said he was unsure by how much the government is planning to cut Hadopi’s budget.
US authors demand damages in Google Books dispute
A US authors’ group has demanded that Google pays it $750 for each book the Internet company has scanned without authorisation under its Google Books initiative.
In the latest twist in a seven-year legal battle, the Authors Guild has claimed Google had no right to reproduce, distribute and display millions of copyrighted books. Te group, which represents more than 8,000 US authors, made the claims in a summary judgment filed at the US Southern District Court of New York on August 3, 2012.
Since late 2004, Google has scanned at least 20 million works, most of which, the Guild believes, are protected by copyright. Internet users can conduct full text searches of
the
books and read snippets of those protected by copyright. If a book’s copyright has expired, the user can read it in full.
Google has argued the programme amounts
to “fair use” under US copyright law. In its own summary judgment, filed on July 27, the Internet company said Google Books provides “enormous” public benefit without reducing the value of authors’ work. “Google Books is an important advance on the card-catalogue method of finding books,” it said.
“Readers benefit by being able to find relevant books. Authors benefit because their books can be more readily found, purchased, and read. Te public benefits from the increase of knowledge that results,” it added.
Te parties have tried to resolve their dispute, which began in 2005. Tey proposed a settlement that would have allowed Google to continue digitising books while paying $125 million in royalties each year to the owners of the books being scanned.
But it became clear that it was difficult to
establish whose work Google was scanning. As a result, Judge Denny Chin ruled last year that while digitising books would benefit many, the pact would have allowed Google to “simply go too far”.
Te legal wrangling has restarted, and if Google were found liable for copyright infringement it might have to pay billions in damages. But Scott Cleland, a research analyst who has spent 10 years studying Google, said it was still unclear which books Google has actually scanned.
Tis could lead to a “mind-bending notification problem” he said, and the court could ask Google to find a way of notifying each copyright owner that its work had been infringed.
Judge Chin is set to hear oral arguments on October 9 this year.
US brand targets online retailer over ‘shabby chic’ name
A US company has ordered a UK-based online retailer to remove the name ‘shabby chic’ from its website, which sells vintage goods including linen and picture frames.
Shabby Chic Brands, which owns a trademark for ‘shabby chic’ (a form of interior design), has threatened legal action if the owner of
shabbychicoriginals.co.uk does not change its name.
Te site’s owner, Lizzy Daly, has vowed to fight the brand over the term which, she says, is generic. According to reports, she says an online search revealed 200 articles containing the expression, only four of which related to the US brand.
Tis is not the first time Shabby Chic Brands has targeted an online retailer for using the name ‘shabby chic’. In April this year it filed a complaint at Organization
the World Intellectual Property (WIPO) over the website
‘
frenchshabbychic.net’. Te site redirected anyone searching ‘French shabby chic’ to another site selling furniture.
12 Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 3
Shabby Chic was attempting to have the website removed through the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy arbitration process. However, the panellist overseeing the case refused, ruling that ‘shabby chic’ was a generic term.
In the ruling on June 5, 2012, the arbitrator Harrie R. Samaras said: “It is clear from the evidence of record and the panel’s own Internet searching that ‘shabby chic’ is used ubiquitously on the Internet by many third parties on their websites, or in their domain names to describe an interior design style and a style of furniture and furnishings.”
Te panellist said that, usually, the domain name must still be “genuinely” used for the “relied- upon meaning” in order for the respondent to keep it. Because the website owner was running a legitimate business that depended on the term ‘shabby chic’, the panellist rejected the complaint.
Although Shabby Chic does not appear to have filed a similar complaint against
shabbychicoriginals.co.uk, and may yet pursue the case in court, the decision may provide some encouragement for Daly.
www.worldipreview.com
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