RIAA v the pirate bay
The Pirate Bay is a Swedish website which hosts magnet links and .torrent files allowing users to share digital media files and software via BitTorrent software.
On March 31st 2006 the Swedish police raided 10 locations of servers that hosted the pirates bay (as well as seizing servers that had no connection with the site, but where at the same location) in an effort to shut down the site. Three days after the incident, the pirate bay was relocated to servers in the Netherlands and was up and running again.
On January 31st 2008 charges were pressed against the four founders of the pirate bay, and the trail began in February 2009, using evidence from the 2006 raids. After only 1 day on trial, half the charges had been dropped, amending the charges from “complicity in the production of copyrighted material” and “complicity to make (copyrighted material) available” to only the latter.
The rest of the trial involved the prosecution attempted to show the pirate bay as a website that makes its money by helping others to violate copyright law. While the defence attempted to show the Pirate Bay as a search engine, no different from Google or Yahoo.
On the 17th April 2009 the pirate bay founders were sentenced to 1 year in prison each and fined 30 million Swedish crowns (about £2,800,000) but this sentence was overturned on November 26th 2010 after an appeal and their sentences were reduced to 4,8 and 10 months respectively and the fine increased to 46 million Krona (about £4,300,000)
On March 31st 2006 the Swedish police raided 10 locations of servers that hosted the pirates bay (as well as seizing servers that had no connection with the site, but where at the same location) in an effort to shut down the site. Three days after the incident, the pirate bay was relocated to servers in the Netherlands and was up and running again.
On January 31st 2008 charges were pressed against the four founders of the pirate bay, and the trail began in February 2009, using evidence from the 2006 raids. After only 1 day on trial, half the charges had been dropped, amending the charges from “complicity in the production of copyrighted material” and “complicity to make (copyrighted material) available” to only the latter.
The rest of the trial involved the prosecution attempted to show the pirate bay as a website that makes its money by helping others to violate copyright law. While the defence attempted to show the Pirate Bay as a search engine, no different from Google or Yahoo.
On the 17th April 2009 the pirate bay founders were sentenced to 1 year in prison each and fined 30 million Swedish crowns (about £2,800,000) but this sentence was overturned on November 26th 2010 after an appeal and their sentences were reduced to 4,8 and 10 months respectively and the fine increased to 46 million Krona (about £4,300,000)
Bibliography
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/31/piratebay_raid/ 21/11/11
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/06/71089 21/11/11
http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.143146 21/11/11
http://www.thelocal.se/17640/20090217/ 21/11/11
http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/musik/the-pirate-bay-sentenced-to-one-year-in-prison 21/11/11
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/pirate_bay_appeal_verdict/ 21/11/11
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/31/piratebay_raid/ 21/11/11
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/06/71089 21/11/11
http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.143146 21/11/11
http://www.thelocal.se/17640/20090217/ 21/11/11
http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/musik/the-pirate-bay-sentenced-to-one-year-in-prison 21/11/11
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/pirate_bay_appeal_verdict/ 21/11/11
The Yankee Candle Co. v. New England Candle Co.
This case started when the plaintiff, The Yankee Candle Company, Inc., noticed that the defendants, New England Candle Company, Inc., had opened a retail candle store that possessed aesthetically similar characteristics to their own stores. Yankee turned directly to the Court with a complaint alleging federal and state trademark infringement, federal copyright infringement, and state deceptive trade practices against the New England Company.
While examining the blueprints, the Court found that five of the six elements expressed in New England's plans resemble designs found in its competitor's blueprints remarkably.
“The designs for New England's storefront windows and framing, the display units depicted from the front and the side, and the overhead layout of the store, including its French doors and recessed entrance, could pass for replicas of the designs for the same elements in Yankee's Holyoke store plans. Only the "light cove detail" that illuminates the New England store's sign does not have a twin in the Yankee plans. Nevertheless, given Komosa's access to the copyrighted blueprints and the similarities between the two sets of plans, the Court concludes that copying has occurred.”
While examining the blueprints, the Court found that five of the six elements expressed in New England's plans resemble designs found in its competitor's blueprints remarkably.
“The designs for New England's storefront windows and framing, the display units depicted from the front and the side, and the overhead layout of the store, including its French doors and recessed entrance, could pass for replicas of the designs for the same elements in Yankee's Holyoke store plans. Only the "light cove detail" that illuminates the New England store's sign does not have a twin in the Yankee plans. Nevertheless, given Komosa's access to the copyrighted blueprints and the similarities between the two sets of plans, the Court concludes that copying has occurred.”
After extensive hearings, the Court granted Yankee's motion for a preliminary injunction on the copyright infringement claim. Despite some initial difficulty, the New England Company complied with the terms the Court ordered by making structural changes to their store.
Bibliography
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2468963775610038891 12/11/11
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2468963775610038891 12/11/11
Exxon Corp. v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd
Exxon Corp. v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd is considered a leading decision in English law on the existence of copyright in a brand name and the infringement of a trade mark. The Court found that usually a name cannot be copyrighted, invented or otherwise, and that a trade mark can only be infringed when the party shares part of the same market segment.
Exxon took the position that there is copyright in the word "Exxon" for two reasons. Firstly due to the fact they put considerable time and effort into the creation of the word, and second, as there was a significant investment into creating the name they argued it was an "original literary work". Further, they argued that size of a literary work does not matter.
The Court found that the name Exxon, while a trade mark, is only a word which is not capable of being copyrighted. A word alone does not convey any information beyond its dictionary meaning and thus cannot be a piece literary work. Furthermore, allowing copyright in single words would then negate the need for trade mark law completely and would make use of the word in question difficult in public.
With regards to the trade mark, the Court found that the use of the word Exxon by the defendants, who work in a completely different market, doesn’t dilute the plaintiff's brand name or infringe its trade mark.
Exxon took the position that there is copyright in the word "Exxon" for two reasons. Firstly due to the fact they put considerable time and effort into the creation of the word, and second, as there was a significant investment into creating the name they argued it was an "original literary work". Further, they argued that size of a literary work does not matter.
The Court found that the name Exxon, while a trade mark, is only a word which is not capable of being copyrighted. A word alone does not convey any information beyond its dictionary meaning and thus cannot be a piece literary work. Furthermore, allowing copyright in single words would then negate the need for trade mark law completely and would make use of the word in question difficult in public.
With regards to the trade mark, the Court found that the use of the word Exxon by the defendants, who work in a completely different market, doesn’t dilute the plaintiff's brand name or infringe its trade mark.
No comments:
Post a Comment