JOLT Digest

District Court Holds that Defendant Cannot Refuse to Decrypt Hard Drive under Fifth Amendment
By Brittany Horth – Edited by Abby Lauer

U.S. v. Fricosu, No. 10-CR-00509 (D. Colo. Jan. 23, 2012)
Slip Opinion hosted by Internet Cases

Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted the government’s motion to compel Ramona Camelia Fricosu to provide an unencrypted copy of her hard drive for evidentiary purposes. The court considered whether the act of producing the unencrypted hard drive was privileged and not whether the contents of the hard drive were privileged.

Judge Blackburn held that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring Fricosu to provide the government with the unencrypted contents of her laptop pursuant to a valid search warrant.  He reasoned that Fricosu was not being compelled to self-incriminate because the government had already met its burden of proof by demonstrating that it knew of the location and existence of the relevant computer files and it knew that Fricosu was the sole or primary user of the laptop.  Additionally, the government offered immunity to Fricosu, under which it could not use her production of the unencrypted contents against her. The production of the unencrypted hard drive could thus not be incriminating in and of itself.

Time Techland provides a brief overview of the case. Internet Cases features a concise analysis of Judge Blackburn’s reasoning. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, who filed an amicus brief in the case, criticizes the court for “dodg[ing] the question of whether requiring Fricosu to type a passphrase into the laptop would violate the Fifth Amendment” and failing to recognize the potential testimonial value of the encrypted data. CNet News summarizes the long-debated issue of whether a defendant can legally be compelled to decrypt his or her computer files as well as the likelihood that the debate will continue.  (more…)

District Judge Seems to Pilot Test SOPA in a Temporary Restraining Order
By Julie Dorais – Edited by Matt Gelfand

Chanel, Inc. v. Does, et al., 11-cv-01508-KJD-PAL (D. Nev. 2011)
Order

On November 14, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued a far-reaching temporary restraining order (TRO) in response to luxury goods company Chanel’s allegations that 288 defendants were selling counterfeit goods online. In addition to ordering the seizure of the defendants’ domain names, the ruling requires that domain registries transfer the domain names to GoDaddy.com, that GoDaddy.com redirect incoming traffic to a separate website, and that search engines and social networks remove the domain names from search results.

Commentators note that the remedy bears an uncanny resemblance to the remedies available under the recently proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). As explained by Information Today, SOPA would give the government the expanded ability to obtain injunctions to seize domains that appear to be hosting infringing material. The injunctions may also direct certain actions by third parties, such as service providers and search engines. JOLT Digest has covered the proposed bill and the surrounding controversy.

CBS News summarizes the Nevada judge’s ruling and comments on its comparison to SOPA. Technology and Marketing Law Blog, Ars Technica, TechNewsWorld and TechDirt offer critical commentary. In particular, Technology and Marketing Law Blog argues that the ruling raises issues about due process, and questions the enforceability of the broad order. (more…)

District Court Strikes Poster and Sticker Requirements from San Francisco Cell Phone Health Risk Ordinance
By Heejin Choi – Edited by Charlie Stiernberg

CTIA – The Wireless Ass’n v. City and Cnty. of S.F., Cal., No. C 10-03224 WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011)
Slip Opinion hosted by Justia.com

The District Court for the Northern District of California, ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction against San Francisco’s “Cell Phone Disclosure Requirements” ordinance, temporarily stayed the measure until necessary revisions were made.

The ordinance requires cell phone retailers to inform customers of the possible harmful effects of cell phone radiation by displaying informational posters on its walls, placing stickers on other displays, and providing a fact-sheet to customers, regardless of whether they purchased a cell phone or not.

Judge William Alsup concluded that changes must be made to the fact-sheet to comply with the First Amendment. He further held that the posters and stickers were unconstitutional, even with the changes.

TechCrunch provides an overview of the case. Ars Technica mentions a recently conducted study showing no link between cancer and cell phone usage.  (more…)

District Court Permits Facebook’s Trademark Suit to Proceed Against Teachbook.com
By Albert Wang – Edited by Abby Lauer

Facebook, Inc. v. Teachbook.com LLC, No. 11-cv-3052 (N.D. Ill. September 26, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied defendant Teachbook’s motion to dismiss a trademark infringement suit brought by social networking site Facebook.

Judge Aspen, writing for the court, held that Facebook had pled sufficient facts to survive Teachbook’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court declined to consider Teachbook’s extrinsic evidence and based its holding solely on the content of Facebook’s complaint and exhibits. The court also rejected Teachbook’s assertion that the word “book” was too generic to sustain a trademark claim, noting that Facebook’s trademark registration covers the compound word “Facebook” and that the specific use of “book” as a suffix was potentially protectable. In so holding, the court noted that consumer confusion could arise because Teachbook framed its service as an alternative for teachers barred by work policy from using Facebook.

The Trademark and Copyright Law Blog provides an overview of the case. John Del Vecchio contemplates the consequences of this holding for other sites with the word “book” in their name, while Eric Goldman criticizes the court’s findings on generic terms and on the likelihood of consumer confusion.

(more…)