Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Navigating the Two Sides of Amazon's Take-Down Process
It's no surprise that Amazon, one of the world's largest retailers for entertainment products, maintains its own process for managing infringement and counterfeit allegations. This process has opened up new strategies for asserting and defending infringement claims. In this article, we explain how copyright, trademark and patent infringement issues unfold on Amazon by describing the process for rights holders to report infringement, and the impact of successful infringement take-down requests. We also address the situation where an infringement dispute evolves into a lawsuit, the resulting personal jurisdiction and state law issues that may arise.
Whether Amazon investigators reviewing take-down requests are attorneys or have any background in intellectual property rights is unclear. The take-down mechanism allows rights owners to seek removal of allegedly infringing products from Amazon's website. The take-down request provides a rights owner with several drop-down choices and a space to identify the allegedly infringing product by listing the corresponding Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN). The take-down request does not ask for information to identify the accused infringer or its location.
But after a request is submitted and an email is sent to the rights owner confirming receipt, Amazon may send a subsequent email seeking additional information. Once Amazon has made its determination on the take-down request, the rights holder will receive an email explaining whether Amazon has decided to remove the accused items. In cases where Amazon has refused to remove the reported items, Amazon permits the rights holder to seek reconsideration by essentially submitting a new request. The process is subjective and, therefore, an identical take-down request may be resubmitted and subsequently accepted despite a prior rejection. To our knowledge, there is no limitation on the number of requests a rights holder can file for the removal of a particular item and there is no fee for submitting a take-down request.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.