JOLT Digest

First Circuit Lifts Trademark Injunction to Make Way for Super Duck
By Miriam Weiler — Edited by Evie Breithaupt

Boston Duck Tours v. Super Duck Tours
First Circuit, June 18th, 2008, Nos. 07-2078, 07-2246
Slip Opinion

On June 18, the First Circuit lifted a preliminary injunction granted by the District Court of Massachusetts, which had enjoined Super Duck Tours, LLC (“Super Duck”) from using the phrase “duck tours” in its trade name and the cartoon of a duck in its logo. On July 2, 2007, Boston Duck Tours, LP (“Boston Duck”) filed a complaint in the district court alleging federal trademark infringement and unfair competition and seeking a preliminary injunction against Super Duck. The district court granted the injunction and Super Duck appealed.

The First Circuit held that the lower court clearly erred in concluding that Boston Duck was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement, by over-estimating the likelihood that use of the phrase and image would cause consumer confusion.

The court of appeals did not address the district court’s ruling regarding Super Duck’s purchase of the key word phrase “Boston duck tours” on Google. “Sponsored linking” or “keyword advertising” allows the purchaser of a keyword to link his or her website to the search engine’s results page with a highlighted link at the top of the page.

The district court found that Super Duck’s sponsored linking did not violate the injunction. It found that sponsored linking, however, does constitute “use” under the Lanham Act, which states that “a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce. . . (2) on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services.” 15 U. S. C. §1127. The district court reasoned that the plain language of the statute and the majority of courts have considered sponsored linking “use.” (more…)

Seventh Circuit Clarifies Online Service Liability for Illegal Advertisements

By Michelle Yang — Edited by Wen Bu

Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc.
Seventh Circuit, March 14, 2008, No. 07-1101
Slip Opinion

On March 14, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for Craigslist, holding that the online bulletin board did not violate the Fair Housing Act by providing “an electronic meeting place” that hosted, among many other things, illegally discriminatory housing advertisements. The opinion by Chief Judge Easterbrook clarified the potential liability of an online service: as Craigslist was not a “speaker” of the illegal information, it was not liable as a publisher.

Eric Goldman of Technology and Marketing Law Blog analyzes Judge Easterbrook’s reasoning as part of 47 USC 230 Week.
Howard Bashman of How Appealing provides additional links, as well as coverage on the en banc rehearing of a similar case, Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, before the Ninth Circuit.
Randy Picker of the University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog sees the ruling as yet another reason newspapers are dying in the competition against less-strictly-regulated online competitors.
In 2001, Joel Michael Schwarz contributed a JOLT article about liability for third party postings in the context of practicing law over the Internet.

(more…)

Federal Circuit Upholds Damages Award Against Echostar

By Andrew Ungberg — Edited by Wen Bu

TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’n Corp.
Federal Circuit, January 31, 2008, No. 2006-1574
Slip Opinion

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld in part and reversed in part an Eastern District of Texas jury verdict finding that EchoStar’s DVR machines infringed hardware and software claims of TiVo’s patent.

Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Bryson found that EchoStar’s devices infringed TiVo’s software claims, but not the hardware claims. The court noted that the trial jury did not award separate damages for each kind of infringement and found the software infringement sufficient to support the entire damages award. Finally, the stay of the trial court’s permanent injunction against EchoStar that the Federal Circuit issued pending appeal will dissolve once the judgment becomes final.

Dennis Crouch of Patently-O adds commentary, including EchoStar’s reaction to the verdict.

Christopher S. Rugaber of the Associated Press examines the business consequences for TiVo.

Bloomberg provides further reporting on the decision.

(more…)

UK Patents Court Holds Software Patents May Be Enforceable

By Sarah Sorscher — Edited by Wen Bu

In re Astron Clinica, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court (EWHC (Pat)), January 25, 2008, Case No. CH/2007/APP/0466
Opinion

On January 25, the United Kingdom High Court ruled that the U.K. Intellectual Property Office (IPO) cannot categorically reject patent claims for computer programs under Section 1(2) of the Patents Act of 1977 (designed to implement Article 52 of the European Patent Convention), which prohibits “programs for computers” from being considered inventions for the purposes of patenting. Noting the “apparent illogicality of allowing claims to a suitably programmed computer and to the method performed by the computer so programmed but not to the program itself,” Justice Kitchin, writing for the court, held that computer programs themselves (as recorded on suitable storage media) may be patentable if the program makes a conventional computer deliver a new technical effect.

The WLR Daily offers a synopsis of the decision.
David Pearce of IPKat expressed surprise at the decision in light of the strong language that had been used in the earlier U.K. Court of Appeal ruling in Aerotel/Macrossan and noted that this decision, if left intact, amounts to “falling into line with the EPO.”
Andres Guadamuz criticizes both this decision and the earlier EPO decisions for changing the meaning of an otherwise clear treaty provision.
The Register’s Kelly Fiveash takes a more positive view, commenting that the ruling “could open up the playing field for small UK businesses looking for a leg-up.”
Finally, Emma Barraclough of Managing Intellectual Property predicts that the ruling might reverse the trend of UK companies applying for patents through the EPO instead of directly through the UKIPO.

(more…)

European Court of Justice holds that EU law does not require ISPs to disclose subscriber information

By Daniel Ray — Edited by Wen Bu

Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v. Telefónica de España S.A.U.
European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), January 29, 2008
Case C-275/06, 2008 CELEX no 62006J0275 (Jan. 29, 2008)
Opinion

On January 29, the European Court of Justice issued a Grand Chamber ruling in Promusicae v. Telefónica. The court held that European law does not require Internet service providers (ISPs) to disclose their subscribers’ identities to trade organizations for the purpose of civil litigation against them, but that European law also does not prohibit member states from imposing such requirements if the legislation sufficiently balances IP and privacy rights.

David Meyer of ZDNet UK summarizes the decision, and quotes a British ISP spokesperson who claims the ruling vindicated ISPs’ self-policing efforts.
Nikki Tait of the Financial Times cites mixed opinions from copyright holders on whether the Court’s leaving open to member states the option of legislating stricter controls will help protect copyrighted content.
Eric Bangeman of Ars Technica notes that copyright holders still have recourse because criminal charges may be brought against infringers, but that some European nations have been unwilling to press charges for copyright infringement.
Gwen Hinze of the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that any victory for privacy advocates may be short-lived, as the decision may impel copyright holders to step up their legislative efforts to impose intermediary liability on ISPs or pan-European criminal penalties on filesharers.

(more…)

European Court of First Instance rejects Microsoft challenge to European Commission decision

Edited by Johnathan Jenkins

Judgment T-201/04
Full opinion
European Court of First Instance summary and press release

On September 17, the European Court of First Instance rejected Microsoft’s challenge to the European Commission’s 2004 determination that Microsoft “abused a dominant market position” by:

1. refusing to supply competitors with proprietary “interoperability information” necessary to develop products that would compete with Microsoft workgroup server products, and
2. bundling Windows Media Player with Windows operating systems, without an unbundling option, between 1999 and 2004.

In its 2004 determination, the Commission imposed a fine of nearly €500 million, which the Court left unchanged. Microsoft may appeal the decision to the European Court of Justice within 60 days.

The court sided with Microsoft on one procedural issue, holding that the Commission exceeded its authority in requiring Microsoft to appoint a monitoring trustee with powers independent of the Commission at the company’s own expense. Microsoft itself acknowledged, however, that the trustee issue was relatively unimportant.

BBC News summarizes the decision.
Microsoft issued a statement shortly after the decision was issued.
The EU Law Blog comments on the trustee issue.