NEWS Premier League piracy fight brings down Radio Times site
Internet users were denied access to UK television listings website
radiotimes.com, as well as hundreds of other websites, as a result of the English Premier League’s (PL) copyright infringement battle with streaming site FirstRow Sports.
According to the BBC, access to the sites was accidentally restricted when the PL directed the UK’s major Internet service providers (ISPs) to block FirstRow’s Internet protocol (IP) address, which happens to be shared by a host of other sites.
Sweden-based FirstRow offers unauthorised streams of football matches from around the world.
In July the England and Wales High Court ordered the UK’s biggest ISPs—BSkyB, BT, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin—to block access to FirstRow, aſter the PL complained that the site was infringing its copyright.
A spokesperson at BT told TB&I that under terms of the court order, it is the PL’s responsibility to provide the ISP with IP addresses for blocking that relate only to FirstRow Sports.
“Te PL is currently looking into whether the IP
addresses provided to BT included any IP addresses that related to
radiotimes.com. BT has suspended blocking of the IP addresses in question in the meantime,” she added.
Te editor of the Radio Times, Ben Preston, said: “It’s outrageous that our website has been suddenly switched off and our users wrongly informed that it’s to protect against copyright infringement.
“Te PL seems to be behaving like the worst sort of blundering striker who’s forgotten the first rule of football—check you’re at the right end before you shoot.”
Gareth Dickson, associate at Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP in London, said that so far, no-one has identified what had gone wrong, or who was to blame: “Te PL’s evidence was that the IP address for FirstRow was not a shared IP address, and it’s not yet clear whether they were wrong about that, or whether something has changed within the domain name system since they filed their evidence,” he said.
USPTO reveals gTLD trademark rules
Te USPTO has published draſt rules for examining trademark applications for gTLDs.
USPTO policy prevents people registering trademarks for gTLDs because consumers view suffixes merely as a portion of a web address, not as an indicator of goods and services.
But the pending introduction of more than
1,000 gTLDs means there are some applications corresponding to existing trademarks, therefore forcing the USPTO to re-work its examination guidelines.
Under draſt rules published in August, which were open for public comment until September 8, the USPTO says applicants must pass three tests to have their gTLD trademarks approved.
First, the applied-for gTLD trademark—the ‘dot’ will be disregarded—must match an active US trademark registration covering the same subject matter of the websites that will be registered under the gTLD.
For example, if an applicant submits prior registrations identifying its goods as “automobiles” and its services as “automobile dealerships”, the services in the gTLD application may be identified
10
as “domain-name registration services for websites featuring automobiles and information about automobiles”.
Applicants must also submit a “significant” amount of additional evidence, such as advertising or promotional materials, to show that the gTLD trademark will immediately function as a source identifier.
“Because consumers are so highly conditioned and may be predisposed to view gTLDs as non-source indicating, the applicant must show that consumers already will be so familiar with the wording as a mark,” the USPTO said.
Te agency is also demanding applicants provide evidence that they have signed a registry contract with ICANN to operate the applied-for gTLD. Without such evidence, trademark applications will be rejected.
Finally, applications must provide a “legitimate service for the benefit of others”, the USPTO said, with examiners instructed to consider questions such as “to what entities and industries will the applicant’s domain-name registration or registry services be targeted?”.
Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 2, Issue 3
Te agency added: “While operating a gTLD registry that is available only for the applicant’s employees or for the applicant’s marketing initiatives generally would not qualify as a service, registration for use by the applicant’s affiliated distributors typically would.”
Dave Wong, partner at Barnes & Tornburg LLP in Indianapolis, said he was pleased the USPTO was providing some guidance on gTLDs.
“I’m glad the USPTO is thinking proactively and getting prepared, as a lot of US law tends to be reactive.
“It’s a bit surprising to see how detailed the proposals are, but the general premise is still there—that a trademark must function as a source identifier.”
One requirement that is more “concrete” than usual, Wong said, is for applicants to show that their corresponding US trademarks, rather than just the application itself, are being used in commerce.
“Maybe this is to prevent fraud or squatting,” he said.
Te gTLDs are set to go live this autumn, although some have been delayed by several months following security concerns.
www.worldipreview.com
He added that no-one thought that the injunction would be “fool-proof”, or that “false positives would not occur”, adding: “although there is now an increasing body of legal precedent applying to these types of cases, the practical aspects of blocking injunctions are still being worked out”.
“Time will tell whether today’s issues are merely teething problems, or whether they are signs
that blocking for blocking websites.
“Depending on where the fault for the mistake lies, rights holders’ evidence may well be subjected to additional scrutiny in future applications, and resulting orders may well become much more complex,” he continued.
Te PL did not respond to a request for comment.
injunctions cannot ever work, which is a particularly pertinent question given the government’s recent proposals certain types of
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