Pop-up Advertisement Litigation Strategies
June 01, 2004
Originally, e-commerce businesses relied on banner advertising that appeared on Internet sites when users visited. Next, e-commerce merchants found that unsolicited bulk e-mailing (a.k.a. spam) was more effective, because it could be sent to Internet e-mail users. Now, e-commerce professionals have found that "pop-up" ads are more effective still, because they can be sent to every Internet user. Pop-up ads are advertisements that spontaneously appear on a personal computer screen when an Internet user accesses the Internet. Currently there is no effective regulation of pop-up advertisements and until their actions are regulated, civil litigation is the most viable option to stop pop-ups advertisements from invading the privacy of unknowing and unwilling Internet users.
Net News
June 01, 2004
Cases and news of interest in the Internet industry. This month: Feds Reject 'Do-Not-Spam' list ... and more!
The RIAA's New Frontier
June 01, 2004
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.
Google Ogles More Permissive Ad Policy
June 01, 2004
The 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.
House Subcommittee Hears Testimony on Amendment to FTDA
June 01, 2004
In 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 <i>Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.</i>, 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.
A Primer on IP Insurance Options
June 01, 2004
In 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.
IP News
June 01, 2004
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Vicarious Liability and Copyright Law: Breaking with Tradition
June 01, 2004
Vicarious 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." <i>Meyer v. Holley</i>, 537 U.S. 280, 283 (2003).
Online: Learn How to File Electronically
June 01, 2004
For attorneys who wish to file electronically in the federal district courts, the Case Management — Electronic Case Filing ("CM/ECF") site at <i>www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/cmEcf/</i> 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.
Practice Tip: Recovering Under the Theory of Failure to Issue Post-Sale Warnings
June 01, 2004
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.
