Copyright@300 Mp3s/PDFs
The Copyright@300 conference is now available online. (via Pam Samuelson.) It’s a fabulous lineup of speakers and I can’t wait… Read More »Copyright@300 Mp3s/PDFs
The Copyright@300 conference is now available online. (via Pam Samuelson.) It’s a fabulous lineup of speakers and I can’t wait… Read More »Copyright@300 Mp3s/PDFs
Copyright law turns 300 today. As I regularly explain to my students, compared to the laws of property or crime,… Read More »Happy 300th B-day (c)
Back in 2004, USA Today, and many other news organizations, reported on Tiffany’s lawsuit against eBay. The trademark issue is fairly simple to grasp — a lot of the Tiffany jewelry sold on eBay is apparently not authentic Tiffany jewelry. So is eBay liable for the sale of these fakes? The district court said no. The Second Circuit, in its appellate opinion and order, issued today, has largely agreed, but has remanded on the issue of false advertising.
This case is a pretty big deal, given the size of the eBay marketplace, the trademark doctrines involved, and the pressing questions of liability for online intermediaries. The EFF, which filed amicus pleadings in support of eBay, has collected some of the pleadings in the case here.
Rebecca Tushnet and Eric Goldman (and others, no doubt) have beaten me to the punch on the analysis of the opinion, which you can find here. But here’s a quick summary: eBay won on the direct infringement claims (concerning its own uses of the word “Tiffany” and its purchase of keywords), it won on contributory liability (concerning its duty to prevent — or actually, not facilitate — infringement by others), it won on trademark dilution, and it looks like it will need to revisit the issue of false advertising on remand.
The opinion is a pretty easy read. Since Eric and Rebecca have already briefed it in a straightforward way, I’ll just add a few of my personal observations:Read More »Tiffany v. eBay (2d Cir. 2010)
That’s the way the Times describes it, which I found somewhat surprising. I’ll have to read the opinion, but it sounds like the ruling provides Google with something like a DMTA-ish notice-and-takedown regime without absolving those who purchase trademarked terms from direct liability. I’d welcome any insights by those more familiar with the French ECJ proceedings.
Update: This version of events sounds more grim for Google — actually, it sounds like it was written by LVMH. The full ruling can be found here.
Update 2: Okay, so now having read the ECJ ruling, I’m pretty sure this is not a win for Google — more below the fold…
Read More »Google win in French LV AdWords case?Eric Goldman reports here that Rescuecom has dismissed its lawsuit against Google. Eric strongly suggests this was primarily about Google… Read More »I like Rescuecom