Commercial Law

Recent rulings of importance.

New York courts continue to hold that caveat emptor ' let the buyer beware ' represents the general rule applicable to real property transactions. Two recent appellate cases, however, illustrate continuing uncertainty about the remaining scope of the caveat emptor doctrine, while Real Property Law sections 462 and 465 limit the doctrine's significance in many residential transactions.

The Ninth Circuit has now concluded that the ACPA does not apply to a domain name that is first registered prior to the time the trademark at issue becomes distinctive, even if the domain name is later re-registered by a new owner. However, the Ninth Circuit also held that the ACPA can apply to new domain names registered by the new owner after the mark acquires distinctiveness.

The aspect of the Internet euphemistically described as "the cloud" has created a seemingly bountiful opportunity for the unscrupulous to acquire the means to attack innocent and vulnerable victims remotely and anonymously. And unlike the fictional portrayal of the apocalyptical children's tale of Chicken Little and his "The sky is falling!" warning, the current digital version is hardly a flight of fantasy.

What happens when a U.S. company's trademark is misused on the Internet outside of the United States? Short of litigating in that country, is all hope lost in addressing the problem? With the Internet and its global reach, even minor abuses are easily found and can cause real problems for a brand owner. Given the obvious jurisdictional roadblocks that exist in litigating in the U.S. against a foreign person or entity, there are some practical tactics that could prove useful in addressing and preventing this type of problematic behavior.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, denied a Texas-based concert promoter's motion to dismiss a suit by an Argentinian promoter over a planned M'tley Cre concert.

This article concentrates on the scope of Communications Decency Act(CDA) immunity advertisers that operate user-generated content (UGC) campaigns may enjoy, limitations of the CDA in protecting against these claims and ways to structure UGC campaigns to minimize the risk of liability arising from unauthorized use of individuals' name, likeness and other personal attributes possibly included in UGC submitted as part of a sponsored UGC campaign.

Now is the time for trademark, domain name and brand owners to purchase .XXX domains to pro-actively race to stake a claim in their brand ' if only as a defensive measure to prevent other domain owners from registering/using their name in a .XXX context. In the event that yours wasn't the first hand to pull the trigger in the .XXX domain name shoot 'em up, what are the ramifications of having your mark incorporated into an active .XXX domain?