IP SUMMIT
account. We try to transfer fans from non-official to official brand pages and transmit our code of ethics and digital guidelines to all external service providers.
We have also put digital surveillance in place: in-house staff and external law firms specialising in IP rights monitor our trademarks and brand pages daily. We receive regular reports listing infringements in order of priority—what needs to be dealt with immediately, what needs to be discussed and what cases need further surveillance but no immediate
action. It is
impossible to act everywhere, but surveillance helps us catch the worst offences.
When an infringement is spotted, it’s a delicate balance between dealing with the situation, and preventing any kind of backlash that judicial action might cause. We try to avoid issuing cease and desist letters where possible, because it might be seen as censorship, and we have to ask ourselves whether we really want to take strong actions against people who actually “like” our trademarks.
Instead, we have a number of non-judicial actions, including negotiating directly with third party infringers and sending requests to transfer usernames or delete pages. Over time, we’ve found that doing this is more efficient than pursuing a more aggressive approach, and people are more receptive to our concerns.
We have also worked with the group’s marketing and legal teams to identify situations where action is always necessary, such as when content promoting discrimination, violence or irresponsible drinking is made by counterfeiters to promote copies of our products, or companies promoting Pernod
Ricard or products, without our authorisation.
Defamation and offensive content is a big concern for brand owners—how do you protect your brands’ image online?
Aside from the situations when we will always take action, incidents involving infringement or a violation of our code of ethics are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and we always try to explain whatever action we take. If we delete content a third party has posted on our Facebook wall, for example, we will send a message thanking them for their interest in the brand, but explaining that we have to remove content that infringes our trademark or is not in line with our code of ethics.
www.worldipreview.com competing
We are very sensitive to freedom of speech, and people have to be able to voice their opinions of our brands, but if false or harmful content is posted, we will take action.
What are the most damaging examples of infringement you’ve come across?
Martell, Mumm & Perrier-Jouët have fortunately not yet been subject to serious infringement, but our trademarks have been used on a number of occasions without our consent.
Last year, we identified a Facebook page, ‘born to be a drunkard’, that displayed the image of our brand and other spirits brands. Tis is, of
course, contrary to our code of ethics and so we asked Facebook to delete the page. We were not successful at the time, but have recently noted that the page has disappeared.
We had more success in a recent case involving YouTube, where we discovered a US rap group using the name of our cognac to promote its music. Tis is not only a case of traditional trademark infringement—it causes confusion and could lead people to believe there is a connection between the rap group and our brand.
In this particular case, aſter having
contacted the rap group directly, we managed to persuade them to significantly reduce the visibility of the video.
“WHEN AN
INFRINGEMENT IS SPOTTED, IT’S A DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN DEALING WITH THE SITUATION, AND PREVENTING ANY KIND OF BACKLASH THAT JUDICIAL ACTION MIGHT CAUSE.”
Tis is also in line with the self-regulation guidelines that apply to the spirits industry, such as the European Forum for Responsible Drinking, and Distilled Spirit Council of the United States guidelines.
How helpful are social media sites in tackling infringement? Should or could they be doing more?
Our first experiences and contacts with sites like Facebook and YouTube were quite difficult—often we would get no response, or a negative response, to our requests. In the past year, we have seen an improvement, particularly with Facebook, but there needs to be even more interaction and dialogue between social media sites and brand owners. Social media need to be more sensitive to our problems and brand owners must think twice before taking systematic aggressive legal actions.
How useful are social media sites in protecting and promoting your brands?
Social media are, without a doubt, a hugely useful tool and provide a fantastic opportunity to spread information about our brands, as we are able to instantly reach thousands of users. But while we have to be active on social media, we also have to be responsible—the promotion of alcohol is a sensitive issue, and we don’t want underage people visiting our pages and seeing our promotions.
In such a vast community, it is difficult to have adequate monitoring in place, and the ease of ‘cutting and pasting’ digital images may result in many unintentional infringements by users who do not understand copyright and trademark laws. But if we continue our surveillance and our focus on risk mitigation strategies, rather than
traditional legal
remedies, we should be able to catch the worst offences.
Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 3 45
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