NEWS French Court orders block of 16 video streaming sites


Te Paris High Court has ordered Internet search engines including Google, Microsoſt and Yahoo to remove links to 16 video streaming sites from their search results.


Te decision brings an end to a two-year court battle launched by the Association des Producteurs de Cinéma, which represents 120 film production companies, the film distributor representative Fédération Nationale des Distributeurs de Films and film publisher group the Syndicat de l’Edition Vidéo Numérique.


Te groups demanded that search engines Google, Bing and Yahoo stop listing links to video streaming portals Allostreaming, Fifostream and Dpstream, which provide free streams of new films and TV shows without permission from the rights holders.


In the order dated November 28, the court also ordered Internet service providers including Orange and Bouygues Telecom to block access to the infringing websites.


A Google spokesperson said that it was disappointed with the verdict: “We are committed to helping content owners fight piracy across Google’s tools, and we will continue to work with them so that they can make the best use of our state of the art copyright protection tools.”


A spokesperson for Microsoſt told TB&I that it was unable to comment on the ruling.


Olivier de Baecque, partner at Borowsky & de Baecque in Paris, said that a French court had never ordered the blocking of so many URLs all at once.


He said that legally there is a risk that some of the measures adopted may not conform with European human rights and freedom of expression: “Some people say that it’s an excessive measure. However it is limited to the short period of one year.”


He added that there was a “risk” that the decision would be overruled on appeal.


“Technically, there are very easy ways to continue Trademark renewal letter breached advertising codes


A company which sent numerous mailouts to rights holders purporting to offer a trademark renewal service has been told it breached advertising codes and ordered to cease sending the document.


Te mailout, from a company called Intellectual Property Agency (IPA) Ltd, took the form of a notice which warned owners that their trademark was “up for renewal” and invited to them to “sign and return” to renew it.


However, following complaints to the UK’s


independent advertising regulator, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), it has been ordered to stop sending the document.


In an adjudication published on November 6, the ASA wrote that the “prominent” uses of the words “reminder” and “order” and the layout of the form, implied that there was an “existing and ongoing” relationship between the recipient and the sender.


It added: “We understood that no such previous relationship existed between the recipient and the advertiser.”


IP renewal services would normally be carried out by legal representatives.


Various IP offices including the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the World Intellectual


www.worldipreview.com


Property Organization have issued warnings on their websites warning rights holders to be aware of scams.


In its ruling, the ASA added that the use of the word “agency” in the company title and the abbreviation to IPA throughout


the document


may have caused recipients unfamiliar with the trademark renewal process to assume it was from an agency associated with the IPO.


“We understood however that no relationship existed between the IPO and IPA,” it added.


IPA, which according to its website has offices in London and Brussels, is registered in the Seychelles.


In response to the complaints, IPA’s representatives said the document informed the recipient that the service was optional and that it “merely acted as a reminder”.


It added that it was clear that the mailing “was not a bill or an invoice” and that the recipient “could contact their own representative in order to assist the renewal process”.


However, the ASA rejected the claims, ruling that the communications breached the Committee of Advertising Practice Code concerning misleading advertising.


“We considered that the ad did not make clear that it was a marketing communication and concluded that the ad was misleading. Te ad should not appear again in its current form,” it wrote.


Chris McLeod, first vice president of the


Institute of Trademark Attorneys and director of trademarks at Squire Sanders LLP in London, warned that companies such as IPA tend to write directly to owners in order to “bypass” attorneys.


“Te clear and increasing danger is that payments are made, clients receive nothing in return and oſten find it all but impossible to obtain a refund because they are arguably contractually bound,” McLeod said.


It was not specified how much IPA was charging for its renewal service but McLeod said it could stretch to more than £1,500.


“Tere are so many of these companies that the law of averages means that most trademark owners will receive a notification and that a percentage of them will pay them.


“Clients who have paid have been unable to (or unable to afford to) pursue the company in question for a refund, either because their subsequent correspondence is unsurprisingly ignored, or because it would be more expensive to try to get the money back than the amount they have lost.”


IPA did not respond to requests to comment.  Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 2, Issue 4 11


the illegal streaming on other websites on a ‘mirror site’,” de Baecque added.


“Te decision tells you that the websites should be banned from ISPs and search engines, but it’s quite easy to bypass this interdiction by making the same website with a different name.”


He said that the conclusion of the case is a first step for cooperation between the copyright holders, the ISPs and search engines.


“Tey’ll find technical solutions to avoid referencing illegal content, more by discussion and negotiation than by litigation,” he said. 


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