The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has published two draft standards to allow users to express privacy preferences in relation to cookies.  W3C released details of:

1. the “Tracking Preference Expression”, which defines mechanisms for users to express cross-site tracking preferences, and for websites to indicate whether these preferences are complied with; and
2. the “Tracking Compliance and Scope Specification”, which defines the meaning of a “Do Not Track” mechanism for notifying websites of a preference and set out best practice for website compliance.

It is hoped that the documents will culminate in the development of software that can be used and developed further by browser operators to protect users from cookies and tracking mechanisms. It is intended that the new standards will allow a user to express a preference for how their data is collected for tracking purposes and alert users as to whether a website honours their preferences or not.

The documents have been developed by a working group within W3C which includes representatives of Apple, Facebook, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Yahoo.

W3C is hopeful that the standards will be in operation in 2012.

BT’s initial response has been that it would need to be ordered by a court before taking action, in the same way that a court order was needed before Newzbin2 was blocked. Those downloading copyright content illegally may not be paying for the service they receive, but it is certainly costing the ISPs and industry bodies huge amounts in legal fees to try to prevent it.

UK patent applications can be refused on various grounds, one of which is if the patent subject matter falls within an excluded type, such as pure business methods, a method for performing a mental act or computer programs that do not have a technical effect.

The High Court has allowed the appeal, and has referred the application back to the IPO for reconsideration.  The ruling was made on the basis that the application made a significant contribution with a relevant technical effect, such that the software should not be considered wholly within the computer program exclusion from patentability.

This ruling is further evidence of the alleged ‘over strict’ interpretation of the exclusions from patentability by the IPO.

A hearing officer at the Intellectual Property Office has allowed Hewlett-Packard’s appeal against the rejection. The appeal was allowed following the consideration of previous cases, in particular the High Court’s ruling in Halliburton, which concluded that mental acts could be patented where mathematical calculations with software and are technical enough to be patentable, and that the exclusion of patentability for mental acts should be interpreted narrowly. The application was sent for further examination by the IPO following the decision.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) have been informed of the breach and the business secretary, or his office, could be liable for a fine of up to £500,000 if the ICO finds that data protection law has been seriously breached.

It took 18 months for the fake review to be removed by Google, despite the fact that Google had been contacted several times to remove the post. Google’s only comment was that it had rules against impersonation and hate posts, but could not be an ‘arbitrator’ and that the best way to respond to a fake post was by posting a follow up review to share both sides of the story. The police agreed that the post had no foundation but said they were powerless to act.

The individual concerned estimated that he had lost 80% of his local business and said that he intended to sue Google for defamation. In reality, though, he would have an uphill David against Goliath battle to win to beat Google. Critics are calling for Google to introduce a verification process for posts, despite the man-power that such a policy would require.

The announcement follows a series of measures put in place by credit card companies to prevent the use of credit cards to pay for pirated music, meaning that premium rate payment services could soon be used as a quick and easy form of payment.

The City of London Police and The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (which represents the recording industry worldwide) will supply PhonepayPlus with on-going information updates about copyright infringing websites, which the regulator will then pass on to service providers. If the regulator then discovers evidence of payment services being used by those websites, it will report back to The City of London Police and The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry and notify the provider that the service they offer is illegal. The overarching aim of the announcement is to ensure that pirated music is not used as a way of laundering money, or otherwise generating income, which is then used to fund organised crime or terrorist activity.

In the interview, Holden promoted certain information about the law firm group “QualitySolicitors”, and a presenter of the programme was considered to have endorsed the promotion. Ofcom ruled that “undue prominence” had been given to QualitySolciitors during the interview and ITV had not given sufficient information to viewers as to why the brand was being promoted in an interview with an actress.

The ruling noted that ITV was providing refresher training to its production team to prevent a repeat of the breach.

The ECJ ruled that those individuals that were the subject of stories published online not only had the choice of suing the publisher either in the country where the publisher is based or in the country where the individual had their “centre of interests”, but they also had the choice of bringing the claim in a country where the story or content was accessible (although only for the damage suffered in that country). In such an instance, the ECJ ruled that the relevant national courts could not apply a stricter law to the case than that applied by the courts in the country where the publisher was actually based.

In an age where content spreads so easily on the Internet, the waters have suddenly become more muddied for a publisher – it is now much easier than previously thought for a person who is the subject of a story to take action.

The initial ruling was given in favour of the film studios (whose copyright material had been copied) under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the Act), which provides that an injunction may be granted against an Internet service provider (ISP) that has “actual knowledge” of the use of its service to infringe copyright. The case will be of interest to ISPs and rights-holders, particularly since this is believed to be the first time that an order under section 97A has been made against an ISP.

BT has been ordered to use its Cleanfeed filtering system, which is currently used to block access to websites featuring images of child abuse, to block the website. Controversially, BT was also told to pay for the cost of implementing the court order. The judge said that since BT made money out of its users, it was right that it should foot the bill as part of the cost of doing business, and in any event the costs were proportionate. It left open the possibility of whether the costs would always be paid for by the ISP but in this case it would make sense.

BT and the film studios agreed that as software had been developed and was likely to be circulated by copyright infringers that could circumvent BT’s Cleanfeed system, BT’s blocking measures may have limited effect. However, the High Court judge said that the court order would still be justified if it meant that access to Newzbin 2 was prevented for only a minority of users.

This is the first time an order has been granted against an ISP under section 97A of the Act, but it is also interesting to note that the judge stated that he thought it unlikely that, following the implementation of the block, a BT user would be able to bring a claim against BT for breach of their Internet service contract with the ISP. However, that might be little consolation for BT, which merely thanked the High Court for providing ‘clarity’ on the issue.

No doubt, BT would have felt a bit aggrieved that the Court had refused to accept its argument that the order should be set aside or varied if the film studios did not apply within a reasonable time for the same injunction against other UK ISPs. The Court said that there was nothing in the law that made the injunction conditional on this action being taken. It was for the studios to decide on which remedies they would pursue and against whom.

BT would also no doubt have been unhappy at the refusal of the judge to give it permission to shut down Cleanfeed temporarily if it needed to. The judge said that it would only do that if the studios consented or BT obtained a court order.

So, all in all, a great result for the creative industries, but not a particularly good day in court for innocent ISPs.

The 65 requests received in that period covered more than 300 individual items, and came from the UK government and courts. Six of the requests related to videos that raised national security concerns on YouTube, and several other were court orders relating to defamation and privacy.

Details of the requests can be found here.

The draft guidelines require that certain information should be provided to end users by:

-      national regulatory authorities (Ofcom in the UK), which are required by law to ensure that the relevant information is provided;

-      Internet services providers (ISPs), which are required at law to provide the relevant information; and

-      other third parties such as price comparison websites.

The information provided by the above entities should be formed on the basis of a common terminology to avoid end user confusion. The information provided relates to download and upload speeds (that are both actual and advertised), service availability, service quality, usage limitation (including data caps, download limits and fair use policies) and any traffic-management techniques used by ISPs to avoid network congestion.

The guidance is draft only – BEREC has invited comments from interested parties by 2^nd November 2011 – but, once finalised, will be a foundation block for ISPs in relation to how they provide their services.

The ISPs have now been granted permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal. It seemed that the Digital Economy Act was safe following the Court of Appeal’s initial decision to refuse permission to appeal, but this long-running saga now seems to have some more time left to run.

The complaint was that the website had been misleading as it had not set out that the surcharges were not optional in order to make a purchase from the website. It was also argued that the website was misleading in the way it set out VAT on purchases, as the price quoted was with the figure excluding of VAT, whereas in all cases VAT would apply.

The ASA upheld both parts of the complaint, ruling that there had been a breach of the CAP Code in terms of misleading advertising and pricing. The CAP Code is the code of practice aimed at ensuring adverts, including material written on businesses’ own websites and social networking websites, are fair and not misleading. The ASA is a regulator in charge of enforcing the CAP Code.

This issue is increasingly in the public eye. The Office of Fair Trading recently told travel companies to make credit and debit card surcharges clearer on their websites. In addition, the Consumer Rights Directive recently adopted by the European Union requires pricing to be more clearly set out.

Many people may be under the misapprehension that they have until the Consumer Rights Directive is brought into force under English law (likely to be about two years from now) before they have to make all charges clear up front in an online order process. In fact, as this ruling shows, failure to be up front and clear on pricing is already a breach of the CAP Code and the ASA enforces the CAP Code even for something said on an organisation’s own website. Although a breach of the Code does not have legal effect, it can result in bad publicity and an inability to obtain advertising space in the future.

The first report considered how 14 social networking websites had implemented the 2009 agreement. This second report considered nine social networking websites, which included a range of blogging, gaming, file-sharing and personal social-networking functionality, and found that only two of the websites had default settings which made a child’s information visible only to approved contacts; the other websites shared a large amount of that information beyond a child’s approved contacts.

The EC has said that it will take into account the two reports when it undertakes a comprehensive initiative to empower and protect children when using new technologies, which is set to take place later this year.

The CAP Code is a code of practice that seeks to ensure that adverts comply with certain minimum standards. Although the CAP Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

The ASA’s ruling can be found here: http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/10/DMC-Digital-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_162815.aspx.

The only surprise with these figures is that the increase is not even greater. We have a number of clients who have come to us for advice on compliance with the new rules, and we also know from some instances that the ASA has been pleased to receive and investigate complaints from competitors and customers.

When an ISP advertises “unlimited” services, that term must only be used where a user will not incur an additional charge (or a suspension) for exceeding a specific usage limit. In addition, limitations that affect speed or usage of a service must be “moderate” and clearly explained in the advert.

When advertising the speed of services, ISPs must be able to demonstrate that a particular speed is achievable for a minimum of 10% of customers, and provide sufficient information to ensure that an average user is not misled. In particular, this information should state, where relevant, that a large number of users will not receive the speed advertised.

The guidance comes fully into effect on 1 April 2012 and advertisers should produce any new material with the guidance in mind.

The OFT’s response to the consultation can be found here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consultations/consumer-landscape/Consumer_Landscape.pdf.

The results of the survey from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators can be found here: http://www.ciarb.org/conferences/costs/2011/09/28/CIArb%20costs%20of%20International%20Arbitration%20Survey%202011.pdf.

The draft ACTA document that had been published by the European Commission can be found here: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147937.pdf.

The ASA’s ruling can be found here: http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/9/British-Telecommunications-plc/SHP_ADJ_155704.aspx.

The paper states that the principles of cloud computing, where file and programs are stored effectively on the Internet, must comply with the strictest principles of data protection and privacy. It goes on to argue that a watchdog body should be formed to regulate cloud computing services, with an emphasis on transparency of cloud computing operations.

In this particular case, the www.equi-sport.co.uk website showed a photo of a horse van with a visible number plate.  The number plate belonged to the complainant.  The ASA said that the photo should not have appeared without their permission.  If the photo was to appear, the licence plate should at least have been obscured. 

The ASA’s decision can be found here: http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/9/Equi_Sport-Horseboxes/SHP_ADJ_160438.aspx/.

In response to the claims, TripAdvisor gave a strong denial and said it would fight. It said it spent thousands of hours each year in combating fraud and improving fraud detection to ensure the integrity of its site and stop “astroturfing” – the practice of falsely creating the impression of strong customer support for a product or service.

Amanda Smith issued proceedings against Headline Publishing alleging fraud, breach of contract, misrepresentation and negligence on the grounds that Headline Publishing had deliberately attempted to get a negative report from a barrister that would allow it to refuse to publish the book. She alleged that there had been a breach of contract because the book had not been published.

The High Court ruled that Headline Publishing had not committed any fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract or negligence by failing to publish the book. Due to the privacy and libel issues the book contained, Headline Publishing was entitled not to publish the book.

So all’s well that ends well – as far as the publisher is concerned anyway.

The ICO has now completed the audit and has said that Google has taken ‘reasonable steps’ to improve its privacy policies and that it has taken action in all the areas in which it had agreed to do so. The ICO has now asked Google to continue its improvements and to better inform its users of its privacy policies.

The Government commissioned Ofcom to produce a report on how effectively the website-blocking provisions of the DEA could be enforced. The report considered:

-          the technical means available of blocking websites, which it concluded could not be 100% effective and could be widely avoided; and

-          how effective the DEA could be when compared to section 97A of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), under which an ISP’s actual knowledge of copyright infringement using its network could be grounds for the granting of an injunction by the courts. The report concluded that the DEA method would be slow, expensive and uncertain when compared to the CDPA route.

The Ofcom report concludes that any DEA system would be ineffective, and that website blocking should be only one of a number of alternatives to reducing copyright infringement online. The Government’s announcement follows a recent case considered by the High Court in which BT was ordered to block a copyright infringing website known as Newzbin 2 under the provisions of section 97A of the CDPA. Following the ruling, some questioned whether the relevant sections of the DEA are actually necessary – the courts seem capable of dealing with the issue of blocking on a case-by-case basis under the CDPA.

Whilst the section 97A method can also be long and expensive, the Newzbin ruling shows that the method is a realistic option. When compared with the DEA, its requirements are also much easier to understand and invoke – the CDPA requires the demonstration of actual knowledge on the part of an ISP that its network is being used for copyright infringing activities. The DEA, on the other hand, has a number of requirements, including having evidence of the amount and type of material available, as well as the need to show that, before a website can be blocked, the operator of the website as well as the ISP has been warned of the possible consequences of the infringing activity.

A contractor was employed to perform building works on a property. The contract included a limitation clause which stated:

“No action or proceedings under or in respect of the [contract] shall be brought against the Contractor after:

(i)                   the expiry of 1 year from the date of Practical Completion of the Services; or

(ii)                 where such date does not occur, the expiry of 1 year from the date the Contractor last performed Services in relation to the Project.”

Dean Construction (DC) never formally certified practical completion, and Inframatrix Investments (II) issued proceedings, claiming that the works were defective.

The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) ruled that II’s claim had been issued more than 1 year from the date on which DC last performed the services under the contract. The TCC therefore struck out the claim.

Whilst this ruling is only in respect of a strike out application by DC, it should be noted that the TCC clearly ruled that the bespoke limitation period applied and could be relied on by DC. This is a reminder that, if a business wants a specific limitation period to apply to a contract, it must expressly state that limitation period in the contract, but once it is stated, provided it is reasonable, the limitation period can be relied on. Crucially, though, it must be reasonable– otherwise, the attempted limitation may not be enforceable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act.  What is reasonable depends on the facts of the case.

Andrew Ainsworth (AA) was hired in 1976 by Lucasfilm (L) to make ‘Stormtrooper’ helmets and armour for the film ‘Star Wars’ which was released in 1977 (later renamed ‘Star Wars: A New Hope’). In 2004, AA set up a website and sold helmets and armour produced using the same mould as had been used in 1976, some of which were sold and delivered to customers in the USA. L issued proceedings against AA in California for infringement of copyright and trade marks, and the US District Court in California ruled against AA to the tune of $10 million. However, since AA had no assets in the USA against which the judgement could be enforced and since the UK usually does not enforce US court judgements, the US proceedings were not taken any further.

Instead, proceedings were issued in England. AA admitted that he had used drawings provided to him in 1976 by L, and that he had used those drawings in producing the helmet and armour. Although AA admitted that L had had unregistered design rights in the helmets and armour which would have prohibited him from manufacturing identical objects (and such rights are totally different to copyright), he contended that these were the only rights L had had which AA could have otherwise infringed (as these unregistered design rights only last for 10-15 years from their creation and so had expired at the time he started recreating the helmets and armour). However, he said that to the extent the drawings and objects attracted protection under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), they were not artistic works (and it should be noted that a sculpture is an Artistic work so he was arguing the objects were not sculptures, which would attract protection). He also argued that he was not infringing CDPA by making helmets and armour to the designs because, if for some reason the judges were to find that the original objects were sculptures (contrary to what he was arguing) then he was entitled to a defence under sections 51 and 52 of the CDPA which permits manufacture of an article to a design, without infringing copyright.

In the initial ruling, the High Court ruled that the defence under sections 51 and 52 of the CDPA did apply. Accordingly, there was no copyright infringement. The High Court also ruled that, whilst the US judgment could not be enforced in the English courts, the US copyright had been infringed and the claim was justicable in the English courts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the High Court by saying that the helmet and armour were not artistic works under the CDPA. However, the Court of Appeal rejected the High Court’s reasoning in relation to the justicability of a claim in the English courts – a claim for infringement of US copyright should not be justicable in the English courts. As a result, L appealed to the Supreme Court on two issues:

1)       whether the helmets and amour were sculptures (which would attract copyright protection) and then whether the defences under sections 51 and 52 of the CDPA applied; and

2)       whether the English courts could consider a claim against a person domiciled in England for copyright infringement alleged to have happened, and was subject to a law, outside the EU.

Supreme Court Ruling

1) Copyright

The law relevant to the copyright infringement claim, as referred to above, is provided by the CDPA. Under section 1 of the CDPA, copyright exists in original artistic works. Under section 4 of the CDPA, artistic works can include graphic works or sculptures, which are defined as a cast or model made for the purposes of sculpture. Section 16 of the CDPA defines copyright infringement as being a person who copies all or part of a work, whether directly or indirectly, without the copyright owner’s permission.

The Supreme Court ruled that the helmet was not a sculpture. Rather, it was considered to be ‘a mixture of costume and prop’ for the effect of the film it was used in. The film itself was the work of art, rather than the helmet, which merely contributed to the success of the film. The Supreme Court referred to the helmet as ‘utilitarian’ in that it was merely an element of the production process of the film. Therefore the rulings of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal were upheld.

As such, the Supreme Court did not need to consider sections 51 and 52 of the CDPA and whether AA could rely on them as defences to the copyright infringement – the helmet was not an artistic work that was subject to copyright in the first place, and as such AA had not infringed any copyright under the CDPA for which he required a defence.

2) Justicability in England

The relevant law considered by the Supreme Court, in order to decide whether alleged copyright infringement abroad under the provisions of a foreign law was justicable in the English courts, was somewhat more complicated, in that the Supreme Court had to consider both the Brussels Regulation, an EU regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and case law.

Under article 22(4) of the Brussels Regulation 2000, an exception is provided to the general rule that a defendant should be sued in the court where the defendant is domiciled. That exception is that, where proceedings relate to the registration or infringement of intellectual property rights, exclusive jurisdiction is given to the member state in which registration has taken place, been applied for or should have taken place. This exception takes effect irrespective of the domicile of the defendant.

The case law considered by the Supreme Court was extensive, and below is a brief summary only of the issues from the cases considered:

-          the Moçambique rule, resulting from a case in 1893, relates to the trespass of property, and states that the English courts will not exercise jurisdiction in relation to matters which were ‘local’ in their nature, compared to proceedings which were ‘transitory or personal’. Therefore the English courts would not accept jurisdiction on a claim over property outside of English territory unless it could be proved that the matter was a ‘transitory or personal’ rather than a ‘local’ issue;

-          the rule in Philips v Eyre 1870, which states that an act done abroad can only be the subject of proceedings in England if the act, if done in England, would have been a tort;

-          Tyburn Productions v Conan Doyle 1991, in which an infringement of US copyright was struck out by applying the Moçambique rule and the rule in Philips v Eyre;

-          Coin Controls v Suzo International 1999, which applied the Moçambique rule and the rule in Philips v Eyre as well as article 22 of the Brussels Regulation; and

-          Red Sea Insurance v Bouygues 1995, a Privy Council ruling which was applied by the Court of Appeal in Pearce v Ove 2000 in relation to hearing a claim for infringement of Dutch copyright, which stated that the rule in Philips v Eyre should be displaced if a country had a specific relationship to a particular act and the parties.

The Supreme Court ruled that the claim for infringement of US copyright was a claim over which the English courts could accept jurisdiction if there was a basis for that jurisdiction in relation to the defendant. The Supreme Court ruled that the Moçambique rule and the rule in Philips v Eyre were no longer relevant, having been pushed to the side by Red Sea Insurance v Bouygues 1995 and actually being abolished by the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995. As such, there was nothing to prevent the English courts accepting jurisdiction over infringement of intellectual property rights abroad – L’s claim against AA for copyright infringement in the USA under US law could be heard in the English courts.

The Supreme Court also considered intellectual property policies relating to this issue, and referred to the fact that article 22(4) of the Brussels Regulation, which assigned exclusive jurisdiction to courts of the country where intellectual property rights originated (which would have prevented the English courts from accepting jurisdiction in this case) would apply to copyright only in rare cases. The Supreme Court made clear that article 22(4) does not apply to intellectual property outside the EU, but emphasised that it shows that there is a distinction between claims which involve registration or validity of intellectual property rights and those which do not, reiterating that this claim was for copyright infringement and not validity or registration issues.

The Supreme Court also considered Rome (II), the EU regulation on non-contractual obligations, which, whilst not applicable in this case as it came into force in 2009, shows that European policy is not against the litigation of foreign intellectual property rights. Rather, the Supreme Court stated that Rome (II) “… plainly envisages that actions may be brought in [EU members states] for infringement of foreign intellectual property rights, including copyright”.

As such, The Supreme Court ruled that the decision in Tyburn Productions v Conan Doyle was mistaken, and that the English courts could accept jurisdiction for the claim by L for breach of copyright by AA in the USA.

Comment

The importance of this ruling should not be underestimated. Many view this as a victory for Mr Ainsworth because he cannot be sued for his sales in the UK (because the original helmets and armour are not sculptures) and because he will not be sued in the UK for his sales in the US – even though he now could be sued (and the only reason Lucasfilm will not sue him is because his sales in the US were so low, he’s not worth suing)! But that is the narrow view of this case.

The wider significant issue ruled on by the Supreme Court is jurisdiction, and this is what affects everyone else in the future. The fact that a claim for foreign copyright infringement against a person domiciled in England falls within the jurisdiction of the English courts has wide-ranging implications.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the ruling of the High Court, such that end-users of the Meltwater service require a specific web end-user licence from the NLA. The Court of Appeal also agreed that headlines themselves are capable of constituting a copyright work.

The fact that the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s ruling that headlines can be protected by copyright seems to go against previous decisions taken by courts in the UK. Reiterating the ruling of the European Court of Justice in Infopaq v Danske – that extracts of stories as short as 11 words could constitute a copyright work – the Court of Appeal stated that a newspaper headline being a copyright work is ‘plainly correct’. However, the full background reasoning for this element of the ruling was not disclosed by the Court of Appeal, meaning that, if Meltwater appeals to the Supreme Court, this issue is likely to be at the forefront of its argument.

This ruling is also of importance for businesses that use media monitoring services such as that provided by Meltwater. Many businesses use media monitoring services to keep up-to-date with news relating to a specific client and/or industry developments. Such businesses, as end-users of such a service, must also obtain a licence to receive that service. Whilst it is unlikely the NLA will enforce this ruling until it is clear both whether Meltwater will appeal the decision and what the outcome of that appeal is, if it takes place, there is a risk that the NLA will attempt to enforce the recovery of licence fees retrospectively as well as prospectively. Businesses who use such services should prepare, if they do not do so already, to pay licence fees to use the service, and even to pay licence fees for previous use. Whilst there is a widespread belief that newspaper content online should be available for nothing when used for non-commercial purposes, the ruling of the Court of Appeal in relation to media monitoring services, together with increasing tendencies by newspapers to charge non-commercial users to access content directly, further erodes how justified that belief is.

The two magazine adverts, one relating to “Teint Miracle” foundation by Lancôme featuring the actress Julia Roberts and the other relating to “The Eraser” foundation by Maybelline and featuring the model Christy Turlington, were intended to show how well the foundation worked to have an anti-ageing effect by covering wrinkles. They were challenged by Jo Swinson, an MP, for being misleading and not representative of the results that the products could actually achieve. L’Oréal, owner of both Lancôme and Maybelline, produced evidence that both products were capable of improving the skin’s appearance, and also argued that the subjects, Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington, had naturally healthy skin which added to the effect of the adverts.

In both instances, the ASA ruled that the claims made in the adverts as to the effect of the products were supported by the testing evidence that L’Oréal had produced. However, the ASA also ruled that the image used in each advert was not an accurate reflection of the results that could actually be achieved by using the product. As such, both adverts were ruled to be misleading and cannot appear again in their current form.

The adverts breached the CAP Code. The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications and is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

The ASA rulings can be found here and here.

The consultation can be accessed here: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2011/audiovisual/green_paper_COM2011_427_en.pdf.

Newzbin has now threatened to break BT’s Cleanfeed filtering system if BT attempts to block the site. BT has hit back and said that it would be appalled if that happened as Cleanfeed helped protect innocent from highly offensive and illegal content such as child pornography.

The European Court of Justice has ruled that Fiorucci could object to Edwin’s registration, despite the fact that the rights in the mark had been sold. A well-known person can take advantage of these rights and stop a Community Trade Mark being registered if national law allows that person to object, so said the EU’s top court.

The German proposal is alleged to be an attempt to strengthen the State-run monopoly over sports betting and lotteries, which would result in Betfair paying nearly 17% more tax and restrict the number of licences it could obtain as a private betting company, as only seven would be available across Germany. Betfair argues that the proposal is an attempt to keep private betting companies out of the German market.