The American Chemical Society(ACS) filed a complaint on Dec. 9 against Google Inc. in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint contends
that Google's use of the trademark "Scholar" for its Google Scholar
literature-search engine constitutes trademark infringement and unfair
competition. Google has launched the new Google Scholar search
service in November 2004, providing the ability to search for scholarly
literature located across the Web. ACI has its own six year old research
tool designed for academic scientists, called SciFinder Scholar. About 1,000
colleges and universities have bought the service, which provides access to
all of CAS's databases, including information on journal and patent
references, substance information, regulated chemicals, chemical reactions,
and chemical supplier information. So is it all about Google Scholar is free, SciFinder is paid? ACS
can't sue Google for making information free, but they can sue for trademark
infringement...
2. Google
Scores Victory in AdWords Case against Geico
Google
Inc. won a significant legal victory against Geico when a federal judge
ruled that the search engine's advertising policy does not violate trademark
laws. The ruling is the first in American courts to address whether Google
can sell ads linked to trademarked search terms. According to the judge, "as
a matter of law it is not trademark infringement to use trademarks as
keywords to trigger advertising," This outcome had not been expected
as in late August, the judge had denied Google and Overture's motion to
dismiss six charges brought by Geico and on Nov. 19 had denied Google's
motion for summary judgment. Overture (Yahoo!) had settled out of court with
insurance company Geico earlier in December 2004. Terms of the agreement
were not disclosed.
The judge
has yet to rule on another claim by Geico, that Google is liable for
trademark infringement when it lets marketers buy ads that use trademarked
names in the ad copy. But this should pose no threat to Google, as
executives have said Google removes such ads when trademark holders complain.
December 16, 2004,
Google
darf Marken als Trigger verwenden, intern.de:
"Im Rechtsstreit zwischen Google und dem Autoversicherer Geico kam es
gestern zu einer überraschenden Wendung. Ein US-Bundesgericht wies den
wichtigsten Klagepunkt ab."
December 15, 2004, Olsen, Stefanie,
Google wins in trademark suit with Geico, CNet:
"Google scored a big legal win Wednesday when a federal judge ruled that
its use of trademarks in keyword advertising is legal."
Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment of non-infringement (PDF
- November 26, 2003)
Letter to Google regarding
AdWords trademark complaints (PDF
- July 23, 2003)
Letter to Google's Trademark
Counsel (PDF
- July 11, 2003)
3. Norwegian Supreme Court will rule on the liabilty for
links to illegal MP3-Files - Napster.no
In 2001 the website
“napster.no” featured hypertext links to illegal mp3-files that were
published on other Internet pages. From the front page the users could
access another page called “Add an mp3-file” and write in the name of the
artist, the title of the song and the address (URL) of where the files could
be found. After legal threats by the IFPI, the operator (Bruvik) shut down
his pages as he had been informed that the pages could be violating
Norwegian copyright law. So on November 20th 2001 he deleted all
links to illegal mp3-files. TONO (Norway's Performing Rights Society) and
NCB (Nordic Copyright Bureau), on behalf of the copyright owners and the
record companies EMI Norsk AS, BMG Norway AS, Sony Music Entertainment
Norway AS and Universal Music AS, on behalf of the artists and the
producers, thereafter initiated legal actions by filing a complaint within
the court of conciliation. The claim set forth was for NOK 500,000 as
compensation for breach of the Norwegian Copyright Act (1961), Section 55.
The district court of Sør-Gudbrandsdal delivered a
judgement on January 22nd, 2003 which stated: "Napster Frank Allan Bruvik
represented by Frank Allan Bruvik is hereby sentenced to pay the plaintiffs
a lump sum of damages set to NOK 100,000 – one hundred thousand Norwegian
Crowners – with the additional interest rate of 12% per year until payment
is done, cf. the Interest Rate Act (1978), Section 3, subsection two."
The Court of Appeal came to a
different conclusion than the district court, which reads as follows:
"[T]he actions committed by Bruvik were not an action relevant to
copyright as such. He himself did not use the files, and he did not store or
copy the files. His actions [deeplinking]
consisted merely of reference to sites where the works already were made
accessible. References of this kind cannot be regarded, in the opinion of
the Court, as a public performance. The actions of Bruviks must be compared
to those of a bulletin board containing addresses to uploaded music works.
The linking itself did not involve a performance."
The case is before the
Norwegian Supreme Court in January 2005.
Links from Infringing URL to
Gripe Sites Implicate Free Speech and Can't Be Enjoined, Electronic
Commerce & Law Report 2004, 748-749 (about the Nissan Motor Co. v.
Nissan Computer Corp. verdict)
Search Engine's Sale of Mark as
Trigger For Banner Ad is Actionable Trademark Use, Electronic Commerce &
Law Report 2004, 772
Google, Trademark Owner Debate
Whether Use of Mark to Trigger Ad Is Commercial Use, Electronic Commerce
& Law Report 2004, 791-792
Sale of AdWords to Rivals
Alleged To Constitute Commercial "Use of Mark", Electronic Commerce &
Law Report 2004, 808
New in Decisions:
VG Münster, Decision of
November 5, 2004,
Az 1 L 1118/04
"[T]he actions committed by
Bruvik were not an action relevant to copyright as such. He himself did
not use the files, and he did not store or copy the files. His actions
[deeplinking] consisted merely of reference to sites where the
works already were made accessible. References of this kind cannot be
regarded, in the opinion of the Court, as a public performance. The
actions of Bruviks must be compared to those of a bulletin board
containing addresses to uploaded music works. The linking itself did not
involve a performance."
In the last two
years the German Federal Court of Justice issued two very important verdicts
on the legality of hyperlinking. In the "Paperboy" decision the court held
that an online service which offers links to articles in a protected
database is not in violation of copyright and competition law (also see this
Update). In the
"Schöner Wetten" decision the court ruled on the liability for linking to
illegal gambling sites (also see
Update 18).
Thanks to Magnus Stray Vyrje (Attorney at law in Oslo), who represents the
defendant "napster.no" in the
upcoming Supreme Court case on the liabilty for linking to illegal music
files, I can provide a translation of these verdicts in Norwegian.
BGH
(Link to the Norwegian Translation), Decision of April 1, 2004, I ZR
317/01, MMR 2004, 529-532
Liability
Zur Frage eines Wettbewerbsverstoßes durch ein Glücksspielunternehmen,
das im Besitz einer Erlaubnis eines anderen
EU-Mitgliedstaates ist und über das Internet
Glücksspiele auch für inländische Teilnehmer bewirbt und veranstaltet.
Zur Störerhaftung eines Presseunternehmens, das in einem solchen Fall
neben einem im Rahmen seines Internetauftritts
veröffentlichten redaktionellen Artikel die
als Hyperlink ausgestaltete Internetadresse des Glücksspielunternehmens
angibt.
BGH
(Link to the Norwegian Translation), Decision of July 17, 2003 - I ZR
259/00, MMR 2003, 719 ff.
Copyright Law, Competition Law
Das
Setzen von Hyperlinks greift nicht in das Vervielfältigungsrecht des
Urhebers ein. Der Linksetzende haftet auch nicht als Störer dafür, dass er
Nutzern ermöglicht, unmittelbar den Volltext abzurufen und zu
vervielfältigen. Das Setzen eines Links greif auch
nicht in das Recht der öffentlichen Zugänglichmachung ein. Wer einen
Hyperlink auf eine vom Berechtigten öffentlich zugänglich
gemachte Webseite mit einem urheberrechtlich geschützten
Werk setzt, begeht damit keine urheberrechtliche
Nutzungshandlung, sondern verweist lediglich auf
das Werk in einer Weise, die Nutzern den bereits eröffneten Zugang
erleichtert.
Ein
Linkprovider handelt nicht wettbewerbswidrig im Sinne des § 1 UWG, wenn sein
Suchdienst Nutzern durch Hyperlinks ermöglicht,
unmittelbar auf Artikel zuzugreifen, die im Rahmen
anderer Internetauftritte öffentlich zugänglich
sind.
Der
Betreiber der verlinkten Webseite kann nicht
verlangen, daß nur der umständliche Weg über die
Startseiten seines Internetauftritts gegangen wird
und die Möglichkeiten der Hyperlinktechnik ungenutzt bleibt.
Ohne
die Inanspruchnahme von Suchdiensten und deren Einsatz von Hyperlinks
(gerade in der Form von Deep-Links) wäre die sinnvolle
Nutzung der unübersehbaren Informationsfülle im
World Wide Web praktisch ausgeschlossen. Ein
Berechtigter, der die Vorteile des World Wide Web, die gerade auch
auf der Hyperlinktechnik beruhen, für seine Angebote in
Anspruch nimmt, kann es deshalb nicht als
unlautere Behinderung beanstanden, wenn andere die Hyperlinktechnik
zur Erschließung seines eigenen Webangebots für die
Öffentlichkeit nutzen. Die Tätigkeit von
Suchdiensten und deren Einsatz von Hyperlinks ist
wettbewerbsrechtlich zumindest dann grundsätzlich hinzunehmen, wenn
diese lediglich den Abruf vom Berechtigten öffentlich
zugänglich gemachter Informationsangebote ohne
Umgehung technischer Schutzmaßnahmen für Nutzer
erleichtern.
Newsarchive
The Links & Law
website is updated regularily,
so check back for updated
information and resources about
search engine and linking issues.