Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tech Trans Hotline
Terms of Use Can Contradict ICANN Agreement
Knowledge of a Web site owner's terms of use is enough to bind a Web site visitor to those terms, even if those terms are in contravention of an agreement between the registrar and ICANN. In Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 403 (2d Cir. 2004), 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004), the Second Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction order from the District Court enjoining Verio from executing multiple queries of Register's Web site database, which contained pedigree information of Internet domain name registrants (WHOIS data), and using such information to solicit sales of Verio's Web site development services. “The fact that Register owed a contractual obligation to ICANN not to impose certain restrictions on use of WHOIS information does not mean that it owed an obligation to Verio not to impose such restrictions.” Id. at 400 (emphasis added). Furthermore, according to the Second Circuit, there is “no reason why the enforceability of the [Web site owner]'s terms should depend on whether the [Web site visitor] states (or clicks), I agree” if the user is aware of those terms.
Settlement Agreement Between Two Parties Does
Not Protect Subsequent Purchaser
A release provision in a settlement agreement between two parties, which releases the parties and their “parents”, does not insulate a third party who subsequently purchases one of the parties from liability for patent infringement. Unova, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., No. 03-1244 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 31, 2004). The Federal Circuit, applying California law, reversed a Central District of California decision granting Hewlett-Packard Company summary judgment on the grounds that a settlement agreement between Unova, Inc. and Compaq Computer Corp. released Hewlett-Packard from patent infringement liability for infringing Unova's patents, because Hewlett-Packard purchased Compaq and became its parent. The court found that the plain language of the mutual releases indicated the parties' intention to have the releases apply only to “parents” of the parties who were parents at the time the releases were granted, and were not intended to release Hewlett-Packard from liability for acts of infringement prior to its purchase of Compaq. Since the releases were written in the present tense, and applied to acts that occurred on or before the date of the releases, Hewlett-Packard was not entitled to benefit from the Unova release because it became Compaq's parent almost a year after the date the releases were signed.
Terms of Use Can Contradict ICANN Agreement
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.