M-Tech’s objection here was that Oracle had conducted its business in a way in which it was not possible for traders to ascertain whether the goods had originated inside the EEA or outside. In particular, it had deliberately chosen not to make publicly available its database of product serial numbers – and those could have identified where the goods had been first marketed.

The High Court had awarded Oracle summary judgment but on appeal the Court of Appeal agreed that M-Tech had an arguable case. It thought that it was possible that Oracle’s actions amounted to an artificial partitioning of the European market, contrary to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (previously the EC Treaty), with the aim of maintaining price differences in each country rather than any legitimate wish to protect its brand. The Court of Appeal did not award victory to one party or the other, but said that M-Tech’s arguments warranted a full trial and the case should probably end up being referred to the European Court of Justice to make a ruling.

Mark Weston, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and Head of the Online Team, comments: ‘This case shows the risks and dangers of doing business in different countries. Businesses should not stop doing business altogether in other countries, but they should exercise care and seek local legal advice. This can be especially important with online businesses.’

The High Court ruled that Umbro had breached the licence by allowing Dick’s to dip into the off-field market. However, it also agreed that Hudson Bay had breached the licence by doing likewise the other way. The Court of Appeal has now agreed with the High Court’s ruling. The reasoning turned on pockets. FIFA (the regulatory body) had regulations which said that on-field clothing could not have pockets; in contrast, off-field clothes generally did have pockets. There were other differences such as the size of logos, but that was the main distinguishing design difference. Hudson Bay argued that it had asked for authorisation to stock a design without pockets, which had been agreed to by the head of Umbro’s US subsidiary. However, that person did not have actual or ostensible authority to bind Umbro UK, which was the party to the licensing agreement. That lack of authority was borne out by other surrounding facts in the case, such as the delay in executing the original agreement which had been negotiated by Umbro US so that Umbro UK people could sign it.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, comments: ‘This case is interesting because of the sporting subject matter. But it raises another more serious point. When someone wants to get something approved or agreed by the other party in a contract, they should ensure that the individual they are dealing with has authority to bind that other party. Where in doubt, this should be checked with a board director.’

The High Court had real difficulty. It said that that it was impossible to forecast what the box office takings would have been for a film, especially one that had yet to be finished. It was also impossible to test the claimant’s projections of the likely losses. Projecting the numbers of CDs and DVDs, let alone associated sales such as ringtones and radio income, were just a matter of pure guesswork. However, that should not stop Experience Hendrix from being able to claim any losses, as that would have hit the wrong note entirely. The Court therefore had to find some way of quantifying the losses.

Despite all the speculation over figures, two pieces of evidence enabled the High Court to come up with a figure of lost sales of US$5.8m for the 12 month period following 2010. One piece of evidence was a distribution agreement entered into with a company in 2010 and another was from a rival offer made to the claimant for the DVD and soundtrack rights. The High Court just did the best it could based on those two pieces of evidence. Additional damages would not be awarded as a punishment for flagrant infringement, as The Times had made a genuine attempt to have an appropriate licence.

It is doubtful whether this case or its results would be music to anyone’s ears – whether the fighting parties, judge or even the deceased music star.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, told the Trusted Reviews web site at www.trustedreviews.com the following:

‘If music is shared without the copyright owner’s permission, the copyright owner has the right to ask people who have distributed or obtained the music without their authorisation for money to cover their losses, costs and expenses. Even if the copyright owner is mistaken about some of the alleged infringement activity, there is nothing to stop them sending the letters. Copyright is different from some other intellectual property in this regard, such as trade marks and patents, where people have to take greater care before making claims.

‘Equally, there is nothing to stop anyone receiving these letters from simply ignoring them. It is up to them what they decide to do, as few, if any, of these sorts of actions have actually reached the courts to date. However, if their case does get to court, any person found to have done wrong may have to pay more, which is why some people simply pay up to take away the worry.

‘As frightening as it may be to receive these letters, especially for people who have done nothing wrong, they do not simply have to pay up. It is for the person making the claim to be able to prove what has happened. A recipient of the letter could deny it and question the evidence alleging the infringement. If the case is contested, recipients of the letter may wonder how likely it would be that the person sending them the letter would be prepared to obtain sufficient evidence and attend a trial, considering the relatively small sums involved in fighting each contested case. To be able to feel confident of winning their case, the claimant would either want to be in possession of a written admission of wrongdoing or the hard drive of the computer. 

‘The implementation of the recently passed Digital Economy Act could make the position more concerning for households. The Act allows for the Government to introduce new laws that would put the onus on people with an Internet connection if it can be shown that copyright infringement had occurred through that connection, regardless of who actually did the infringement. This could affect people sharing a home or people whose Internet connections have been used by cybercriminals. Those new laws have not been introduced yet and would have to undergo Parliamentary scrutiny first, but there could well be pressure to do so if the music industry continues to suffer lost revenues as a result of continued peer-to-peer file-sharing.’

To go to the Trusted Reviews article, click here: http://www.trustedreviews.com/multimedia/news/2010/07/19/Ministry-of-Sound-Gets-Legal-on-Downloaders/p1

In this particular case, Portakabin made and supplied mobile buildings. It owned a registered trade mark for ‘PORTAKABIN’, Primakabin sold and leased new and second-hand mobile buildings, some of which were owned by itself and others by other suppliers such as Portakabin. Primakabin sponsored ‘Portakabin’, as well as similarly spelt words such as ‘portocabin’, with Google so that Primakabin would appear prominently in response to a search engine query for those terms. Its advert was headed ‘used portakabins’. Portakabin objected and claimed that this was an infringement of its registered trade mark rights. The case worked its way through the Dutch courts, which made a reference to the ECJ to rule.

The ECJ stated that use of a third party trade mark as a keyword would infringe that trade mark unless the advert made it clear that the advertised goods or services do not come from the trade mark owner or licensee. Where this was not clear, European Union trade mark law would not normally provide a defence on the grounds of a mere description of the goods. Trade mark owners can stop unauthorised use of their marks as keywords if the advertising does not enable average Internet users or only with difficulty to ascertain whether or not the advertised goods or services originate from the trade mark owner.

The ECJ also said that legitimate resellers should have special protection. They could not be prohibited from reselling second-hand goods of the relevant trade mark owner, alongside other goods, unless the sale of those other goods risked seriously damaging the image of the proprietor’s trade mark.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, comments: ‘This judgment reinforces the recent Louis Vuitton ruling, which can be found here: http://www.mablaw.com/2010/03/european-court-of-justice-gives-eagerly-awaited-ruling-in-google-keyword-search-terms-trade-mark-cases-google-v-louis-vuitton/. Keyword advertisers are treading on thin ice if they sponsor another trade mark to generate search results for their websites, unless they can show that users are not confused as to the commercial connection. Meanwhile, this latest case also enables legitimate use of trade marks by resellers.’

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York disagreed with Viacom. District Judge Louis Stanton said: ‘Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough. The provider need not monitor or seek out facts indicating such activity.’ As such, Google was entitled to the safe harbour protection as it had had insufficient notice of any particular infringements. The ruling said that the case showed how well Google’s take-down facility worked, because Viacom had accumulated 100,000 videos over several months and nearly all of them were disabled the day after Viacom had notified Google of them. Responsibility to find and identify infringing material was the copyright holder’s and not the online service provider’s.

Google has described the victory as important not just for itself but also its millions of users around the world who want to enjoy the benefits that Web 2.0 brings.

Newzbin provided indexing and search services for the Usenet Internet discussion system. Usenet enables people to upload and view messages on a public bulletin board. Usenet was not designed for big files such as films, which need to be split into thousands of small parts. Any user who wants to see the film needs to piece all those bits together. Newzbin made that process much easier for users. They compiled an index of films, had 250 editors who compiled reports of the films and links to other information about the films, and provided a one-click mechanism that enabled premium paying members to readily assemble the work from its component parts without having to spend days doing so. Newzbin claimed that it was ‘content agnostic’ by indexing the entire content of Usenet with providing links where possible and any unlawful activity was done by a user of the hyperlinks.

The High Court had little time for Newzbin’s arguments. It described terms and conditions saying that its editors must not do any act to enable, incite or encourage any unlawful acts and similar terms and conditions for its users as being ‘entirely cosmetic’ and a ‘superficial attempt’ to conceal Newzbin’s purpose. Newzbin’s functionality and categorisation of content and encouragement given to editors to report films meant it had been aware for many years that copyright in the vast majority of films accessed through Newzbin were being infringed.

Newzbin had authorised the infringement. Authorisation went beyond mere enablement, assistance or even encouragement. It meant purporting to grant a right to do something, and that could be express or implied from the relevant circumstances. The circumstances included the nature of the relationship with the primary infringer, whether material supplied was used for the infringement, whether infringement was inevitable, the degree of control retained by the supplier, and whether any steps had been taken to stop infringement. Newzbin fell foul of all of those criteria. A reasonable member would have concluded that Newzbin purported to have the authority to grant the required permission and had sanctioned, approved and countenanced the copying. Newzbin provided a searchable and user-friendly facility for premium paying members, it must have known what users were doing and took no steps to stop it; instead, any contractual restrictions were window dressing.

Authorisation the infringement was sufficient to have liability to the film industry, but the High Court went further and said that Newzbin had also procured the infringement or had a common design to infringe. It went beyond mere facilitation and extended to being so involved with the infringement as to be jointly responsible. The Court said that Newzbin operated a web site designed and intended to make infringing copies of films readily available to premium members, the service was structured so as to promote infringement and inevitably did so, editors had been encouraged and induced to make reports of films, it had encouraged its members to give advice to each other about how to do it, and it had profited from the infringements.

The Court ruled that there had been a third form of copyright infringement. The facility had enabled Newzbin’s premium members to download the films from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, and when doing so the way in which Newzbin’s service worked meant that it had been actively involved with communicating the copyright work to the public by electronic transmission without permission

It was certainly a happy ending for Twentieth Century Fox and the other film makers and distributors in this case, and they will be hoping that there is no twist in the plot in the appeal courts.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of www.Upload-IT.com, comments: ‘This result is not particularly surprising. If Newzbin had been able to get away with what they did, it would have been open season for everyone. The case does not alter the best practice advice for genuine service providers on the Internet who do not wish to profit or encourage intellectual property infringement. They should have a good system in place to enable the reporting and rapid takedown of infringing material, and act on it.

‘There is still no reported UK case on whether web sites simply providing hyperlinks to other sites where infringing material can be found but without doing more or otherwise benefiting would be doing anything wrong. However, I’d be surprised if such a service provider was pulled up if they were simply facilitating a service to users and had no control or intention over what their users do.’

However, the dispute has now turned nasty. YouTube is alleging that Viacom had paid at least 18 marketing agencies to open YouTube accounts with fake addresses, upload its content onto YouTube and ‘rough it up’ to make it look like it had been stolen – so as to make a claim against YouTube.

Viacom had considered buying YouTube before Google did. The law suit commenced soon after. As to who is the goodie and who is the baddie in this thriller, we’ll just have to watch on. The plot continues to thicken. Reality is sometimes stranger than fiction. It all sounds like Viacom could make a good movie about this case itself!

The purpose of Acta is to protect intellectual property rights in software, music, video and pharmaceutical products against unlawful copying. Hustinx would like to ensure that the negotiating parties consider the balance between protecting intellectual property rights and data protection and privacy rights, rather than data protection and privacy issues being considered at the end. Hustinx particularly wants safeguards to apply to all data transferred out of Europe to countries that do not provide strong enough protection on data protection issues. Hustinx would like to see a public and transparent dialogue on Acta.

Under the Bill, the rights holder would submit a copyright infringement report with evidence to the infringer’s Internet service provider. The ISP would then inform the user of this and provide details of how to lawfully obtain copyright material. The ISP may also need to tell the infringer that his details can be revealed and that this may lead to legal proceedings being taken against him. The ISP would also need to provide a serious infringers list to the rights holder so that the rights holder could obtain a court order for the user’s details if necessary. Meanwhile, the rights holder cannot require the ISP to take technical measures against the infringer to slow down their Internet access speed (so as to make it hard to be involved with peer-to-peer file-sharing), but instead the Government could require ISPs following advice from Ofcom (the communications regulator) to take technical measures against serious offenders.

Meanwhile, the Bill imposes various obligations on Ofcom:

• To approve a code of practice made by ISPs.
• To deal with infringement disputes involving ISPs, subscribers and rights holders.
• To provide reports to the Government on the amount of copyright infringement and actions taken by rights holders.
• To create a code of practice dealing with ISPs’ obligations to impose technical measures against serious offenders.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of www.Upload-IT.com, comments: ‘This Bill, if passed, would give some serious teeth to the entertainment industry to try to enable them to boost their revenue streams once more. However, whether or not it will work in practice remains to be seen. It may also prove to be controversial if innocent people’s Internet access will be cut off (which could happen when the unlawful use may have been by one householder and the rest are collectively punished, or when people’s Internet connections are used by third parties without their knowledge), especially as Internet access is becoming thought of as a fundamental human right.’