Cases and news of interest in the Internet industry. This month: Feds Reject 'Do-Not-Spam' list ... and more!
- June 01, 2004Samuel Fineman
In response to the Verizon decision, the RIAA has turned to the use of "John/Jane Doe" lawsuits as the mechanism by which to identify file-sharing customers of ISPs and obtain judicial relief against copyright infringement. Since January, and continuing through the end of last month, the RIAA has filed hundreds of lawsuits against "Doe" defendants in federal district courts around the country.
June 01, 2004Peter J. PizziThe announcement in April by Google to revisit its Adwords trademark policy has already resulted in trademark litigation against the search engine giant in several countries. The decision by Google to allow third-party advertisers to purchase the rights to any keyword, even if those keywords are trademarks held by another, has become a hot topic for brand owners fearful of the potential business consequences.
June 01, 2004Douglas WolfIn a potential step toward amending the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA), codified at 15 U.S.C. §1125(c), the House Committee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing on April 20, 2004 to discuss the "Committee Print of a Bill to Amend the Federal Trademark Dilution Act." The draft legislation seeks to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003) by providing that the FTDA requires proof of likely dilution, not actual dilution. It also adds a definition of the term "famous" to the Act, clarifies that the Act applies to both blurring and tarnishment of famous marks, and includes defenses intended to safeguard free speech.
June 01, 2004Nancy J. MertzelIn the last several years, a number of insurance companies including Chubb, AIG, InsureTrust (through Lloyd's of London), Venture Programs, Intellectual Property Risk Management ("IPRM"), and Litigation Risk Management, Inc. ("LRM") have begun offering insurance that pays costs associated with infringement of patents only, or infringement of some combination or all of patents, trademarks, trade dress, copyrights and trade secrets. For purposes of this article we will refer to these polices as "IP infringement policies." IP infringement policies vary by carrier and property covered. The following descriptions are necessarily general.
June 01, 2004Eric C. OsterbergHighlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
June 01, 2004Compiled by Kathlyn Card-BecklesVicarious liability is applicable in most areas of tort law. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in an opinion early last year, "traditional vicarious liability rules ordinarily make principals or employers vicariously liable for acts of their agents or employees in the scope of their authority or employment." Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 283 (2003).
June 01, 2004Will MontagueFor attorneys who wish to file electronically in the federal district courts, the Case Management — Electronic Case Filing ("CM/ECF") site at www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/cmEcf/ is very helpful. Go to the site and click on "Requirements." There you will find both the minimum and recommended configurations for hardware and software for both IBM compatible and Macintosh computers.
June 01, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
June 01, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Although a product may be reasonably safe when it is sold, a manufacturer that later learns of risks revealed by user operation may be held responsible for failure to issue post-sale warnings. The justification for a post-sale duty to warn arises from a manufacturer's unique and superior position to follow the use and adaptation of its products by consumers. The manufacturer is best placed to learn about post-sale defects or dangers discovered in the use of its products as compared with purchasers and users.
June 01, 2004Lawrence Goldhirsch

