Does a search engine operator have to delist websites hosting, without authorization, your trade secret materials or other intellectual property? The answer may depend on where you sue—just ask Google. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently handed the company a victory over plaintiff Equustek Solutions Inc. in what has turned into an international battle where physical borders can have very real consequences on the Internet.
The dispute began when a rival company, Datalink, allegedly misappropriated Equustek’s trade secrets in developing competing products. Equustek also alleged that Datalink misled customers who thought they were buying Equustek products. In 2012, Equustek obtained numerous court orders in Canada against Datalink. Datalink refused to comply, and Canadian court issued an arrest warrant for the primary defendant, who has yet to be apprehended.
In September 2012, Equustek asked Google to delist search results for Datalink; Google declined this request. Equustek then sought a court order against Google in Canada and prevailed, resulting in Google removing 300 Datalink websites from search results generated by the Canadian version of its site, located at www.google.ca. Google, however, did not take similar steps with respect to U.S. and other non-Canadian versions of its site, so the Datalink websites continued to appear in search results conducted by users outside of Canada.
Equustek returned to the Canadian court, this time to seek an order compelling Google to remove the Datalink-related search results globally so that Datalink results would not appear for any Google users, regardless of their location. Equustek once again prevailed, and Google appealed to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. That court, and later the Supreme Court of Canada, affirmed the trial court’s order.
Google then brought the battle to the United States; in July 2017, it commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that the Canadian court order cannot be enforced in the United States and an injunction against the enforcement of such order. (Equustek did not submit an opposition brief.)
In support of its preliminary injunction motion, Google’s primary arguments were that the Canadian order (1) ignores the Communication Decency Act’s immunity for interactive service providers (2) directly conflicts with the First Amendment and (3) violates principles of international comity.
United States v. Microsoft Corp.
US Supreme Court, heard February 27, 2018
Issue: Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider’s control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.
Growing frustration in the fashion community regarding weak or non-existent intellectual property laws has finally caught the attention of some nations. Nigeria is one nation that currently is trying to alleviate this frustration by reforming its intellectual property laws. This reform is driven, in part, because, Lagos, Nigeria has quickly risen as a fashion hub, and has been compared with such fashion centers as London, Paris, Milan, and New York. Nigerian designers have recently experienced great global success and visibility. For example, Amaka Osakwe has been pushing the limits of Nigerian fashion and has gained the attention of fashionistas in the United States and abroad. In 2014, she was invited to the White House by Michelle Obama, an admirer of her work, and her “Maki Oh” designs have been worn by Lupita Nyongo and other A-list celebrities. Last year, Ms. Osakwe was named a LVMH Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy Finalist, placing her among the most notable young fashion designers in the world today. Other talented Nigerian designers include Duro Olowu, Deola Sagoe, Lisa Folawiyo, and Lanre DeSilva-Ajayi. As these designers continue to gain worldwide recognition, they must protect their designs from infringement both within Nigeria and globally.
The first hurdle — protecting their fashion designs in Nigeria — is not a simple task. Copyright protection is typically sought to protect the two-dimensional aspects of clothing design, while design law may protect the three-dimensional design and shape of the piece. However, under both Nigeria’s copyright and design laws, designers have encountered significant difficulty protecting their works.
The EU Anti-Geoblocking Regulation has finally been published. After the Council of the European Union adopted the EU Anti-Geoblocking Regulation on February 27, 2018 (the European Parliament had adopted it earlier in the month), the Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on March 2, 2018, as “Regulation (EU) 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on consumers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market” (and amending some existing EU legislation) (the “Regulation”). The adoption of the Regulation is not the end of the EU geoblocking battle, which endures, with the focal point shifting to another piece of EU legislation that is discussed below.
Comments : Comments Off on The European Union Anti-Geoblocking Regulation Isn’t the End of the Anti-Geoblocking Battle (Guest Blog Post)
Categories : International IP Law, Jurisdiction
Techdirt has been following the ridiculous proposal to extend EU copyright even further to include tiny snippets from articles for years now. The idea has already been tried twice in the European Union, and failed dismally on both occasions. In Spain, a study showed the move there caused serious economic damage, especially to smaller companies; German publishers tacitly admitted the law was pointless when they granted Google a free license to use snippets from their titles. More recently, the European Commission’s own research confirmed that far from harming publishers, news aggregators have a positive impact on the industry’s advertising revenue. Despite the clear indications that a snippet tax is a terrible idea, some want to go even further, and make it apply to hyperlinks too. Writing in the French newspaper Le Monde back in December, large news agencies including Germany’s DPA and France’s AFP complained that sites:
Comments : Comments Off on EU Publishers Acknowledge Snippet Tax Concerns, But Say: ‘It’s OK, You Can Trust Us’
Categories : Copyright, International IP Law, Jurisdiction
Epic Games makes videogames, including Fortnite. Rak, a Russian, made a Fortnite cheat and posted a YouTube video advertising the cheat. “Epic Games alleges that Mr. Rak’s cheat and video violates Epic Games’s copyrights and trademarks and intentionally induces other players to modify the game and thereby induces those players to violate Epic Games’ copyrights and trademarks as well.” Epic got some press for the quoted legal position when it sued a minor and mom publicly scolded them. In this case, Epic sent a DMCA takedown notice for Rak’s video to YouTube, which complied. Rak submitted a counter-notice to YouTube.
The counter-notification statute requires the counter-notifier to include their “name, address, and telephone number, and a statement…that [they] will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.” Rak’s notice said he lived in Russia, listed his Gmail address, and said he would accept service. Epic located Rak’s email address used for his Fortnite account in its database and sent emails to both the Gmail and second email accounts including a cover letter, a copy of the summons and complaint, and a service waiver request (all in English). Rak did not reply.
Case citation: Epic Games, Inc. v. Mendes, 2018 WL 582411 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018). The complaint.
This case combines one of my favorite Internet Law topics, 17 USC 512, with one of my least favorite, personal jurisdiction. TL;DR: if a foreign national submits a 512(g) counternotification, it doesn’t ensure the copyright owner can sue in its home court.
The copyright at issue involves “Towergirls,” a video game. One putative copyright owner, based in Australia, had an agreement with Matteo, based in Italy, to extend the Towergirls universe. A Louisiana entity also claims partial ownership of the copyright, but wasn’t part of that agreement. Matteo crowd-sourced his effort on Patreon. The relationship soured when Matteo allegedly added nonconsensual sex to his effort and publicly undermined the putative owners’ ownership. The putative owners sent a takedown notice to Patreon. Matteo counternoticed on fair use grounds. The putative owners sued Matteo in Louisiana. Matteo moved to dismiss.
Case citation: Real v. Matteo, 2018 WL 493596 (W.D. La. Jan. 3, 2018). This is a magistrate ruling. The plaintiffs did not object, and the district court judge approved it on Jan. 19, 2018.
In its latest action in a multi-jurisdictional conflict with a mobile gaming producer, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC and Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC filed a complaint for trademark infringement in the Northern District of California on December 21, 2017. The complaint alleges, among other things, trademark infringement against a London-based game developer Ren Ventures Ltd. for using the word SABACC as the name of their iOS and Android mobile game. Other causes of action include copyright infringement, cancellation of the defendant’s trademark, unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and California unfair competition.
A Canadian appellate court ruled that a lower court had jurisdictional authority to issue a production order to craigslist based upon its virtual (but not physical) presence in British Columbia. The production order requested that Craigslist produce to Canadian officials documents relating to a user post in connection with a criminal investigation. (British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Brecknell, 2018 BCCA 5 (Jan. 9, 2018)).
This decision highlights another situation where a court blurred the distinction between a physical and virtual presence of a corporation that engages in global e-commerce. Indeed, we had written about an important Canadian decision last year that involved an American company objecting to an order to delist certain search results globally. With U.S. companies already concerned about the territorial scope of the EU’s GDPR, they also have to address legal risks associated with jurisdiction by a virtual presence north of the border (and possibly other jurisdictions).
A company that owns some of rapper Eminem’s early work has won a copyright case against an unusual defendant: a New Zealand political party.
New Zealand’s National Party has been ordered to pay NZ$600,000, plus interest, for using music from Eminem’s song “Lose Yourself” in a 2014 election ad. That’s around US$412,000 that must be paid to the plaintiff in the case, Eight Mile Style, a music publisher that owns some of Eminem’s early catalog.
