Tag Archives: Counterfeiting & Piracy

Giving up the Web

Originally posted 2010-11-05 17:11:33. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

ClickZ News says lawyers are “Giving Up on Web Trademark Infringement”:

“Trademark dilution is death by a thousand cuts,” said Joe Dreitler, partner at Frost Brown Todd. “And if there are a thousand people doing parodies of Louis Vuitton, at what point [does it occur]?”

It’s almost as if the claim of trademark dilution, regarding which we have long been very dubious, brings its own punishment: It is now so relatively easy for a truly famous mark (such as Vuitton, which we have represented) to make a meritorious dilution claim and yet it is even easier to dilute a trademark on the Internet. And the bigger the trademark the more dilutable… the more it cries out for dilution… the more lawyers and trademark owners trip over themselves trying to figure out what to do about it. As this article demonstrates, they’re increasingly frustrated over their inability to do anything as the truly anarchistic nature of the Internet defies enforcement regardless of budgets or ambitions.

Probably the smart thing would be to forget about dilution, which the world lived without since Creation, and focus on tight brand building and enforcement against real infringements. But of course that is a course the trademark owners are constitutionally incapable of considering. Are they on the verge of making utter fools of themselves in the RIAA “constant nuclear option” enforcement — I mean, “enforcement” — mode? Probably. And law firms will profit all the way, which is the up side. (You think I meant that as a bad thing?!)

Counterfeit Chic: Knockoff News 67

Originally posted 2010-08-10 17:08:47. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Read it and laugh. Or cry. Definitely laugh or cry.

Then read this really good article on Counterfeit Chic which stands for the proposition that designers shouldn’t use their own names on their labels. Then laugh. Or, cry.


Originally posted 2009-05-24 11:03:12. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Cartier sued Apple last week, and before I had a chance to figure it out, they either un-sued them or announced that they were about to withdraw the complaint, which isn’t even available yet on the Southern District of New York’s PACER system.   As the Wall Street Journal explains, “The suit alleged that two applications for the iPhone infringed on the trademark for the luxury brand’s Tank watches.”   Per CNET News:

At the heart of Cartier’s infringement claim was a pair of apps called Fake Watch and Fake Watch Gold Edition. The apps are made by Digitopolis Game Studio, which interestingly enough, was not named in the lawsuit.

Filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the lawsuit claimed the applications give people the ability to tell time on the iPhone and iPod Touch with a display that simulates famous wristwatches.

Jonathan Lagarenne, Cartier’s lawyer, said the lawsuit would be withdrawn because the company was satisfied that Apple had removed the apps from the store.

That Jonathan Lagarenne is pretty darned effective!  Brings a lawsuit against a major technology manufacturer based, presumably, on contributory infringement, without even, “interestingly enough,” naming the alleged direct infringer, and gets results so fast that he and the rest of his Fox Rothschild colleagues are already riding into the sunset, back to Jersey across the George Washington Bridge!  (More here.)

It is odd, though, isn’t it?  You may not have thought that Cartier would necessarily hire a Philadelphia law firm for, well, for any reason… much less someone out of their crack “Princeton,” New Jersey office (actually kind of only near Princeton)… whose firm bio, while beaucoup impressive, doesn’t exactly scream “litigation” and who has appeared in only three prior cases in the Southern District and five in the District of New Jersey — ever  … to file a lawsuit in federal court in New York against — *gulp* — not just anyone, but Apple.  Again:

Cartier’s lawyer . . .  said the lawsuit would be withdrawn because the company was satisfied that Apple had removed the apps from the store.

An odd choice of words, don’t you think?  Of course it’s not a direct quote.  But “satisfied…” and “removed” (when?) … and “from the store” — were the apps” ever really “in the [Apple] store”?  Aren’t these third-party “apps”?

Why do I have a feeling we’re not getting the whole story here? Read More…

SOPA box

Originally posted 2012-01-18 15:32:45. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Lawyer's break, Herald SquareYou don’t need a link to find out what’s going with the SOPA “Blackout,” or all that other stuff.  It’s all over the place, beyond those with a special interest in intellectual property.

Real news over an IP issue?  Not quite.

Rather, the news and the attention arise from the fact that the threatened power-grab that SOPA represents goes far beyond IP, or “enforcement,” or “brands,” or even “piracy.”

Oh, those are all real things, real concepts.  But their meaning has become so distorted in the public and political debate and spin that they get scare-quotes here today.  It is precisely by turning piracy into a mission-critical bogey-man that the strong-IP advocates have perhaps, for once, overplayed their hands.

A few years ago “civil libertarians” told us our liberties were at an end because of the Homeland Security Act and related policy changes arising from terrorist threats.  Those protests were mainly sincere, but they turned out to be overstated.  For most of us, life in America is pretty much like it was before, except mainly at the airport.

If, however, there had been a serious and widespread degradation in the quality and quantity of our civil rights because of the “new world” that the September 11th attacks, we would have something serious to discuss.  In fact it is still something serious to discuss.  How much are we, indeed, prepared to give of our privacy, our freedom of movement, our personal space, for what may or may not be enhanced physical safety?  Important, fundamental questions.

But I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by while my rights, or those of my clients, are sold down the river to protect the franchises of Sony, Coach and Universal.  And that’s what makes this more than an “IP” issue, and why it’s news, and why it matters.

They always get their man

Originally posted 2009-11-24 17:22:30. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Yes, people do have some funny ideas of what kinds of things to protect with copyright, don’t they?   A few years ago, criminal enterprise Milberg Weiss (in its pre-conviction days) tried to assert copyright in its own specie — the legal papers it filed to generate kazillions in crooked class-action fees — and not so unreasonably (hmm…).

Anyway, it seems that certain countries, though not as wealthy as Milberg Weiss, nor nearly as scurrilous (indeed, arguably cordial to a fault!), have figured, if an American law firm can try to claim copyright in its own money, why can’t we?   Why not indeed?

Dudley and SnidelyAnd so we read of a vacation. “To experience the full excitement of traveling abroad,” writes Eric E. Johnson,

you’ve got to have a pocket full of unfamiliar money. Never mind that their pennies, dimes, nickels, and quarters look almost identical to U.S. coins. And put aside the fact that the exchange rate right now between the U.S. and Canada is almost exactly one-to-one. I was still excited to use different cash.

Inspecting the colorful bills, I got a delightful surprise: a copyright notice!

Aspiring counterfeiters be warned – the bills are copyrighted by the Bank of Canada! That will make you think twice before xeroxing off a sheaf of north-of-the-border moola.

In the United States, we discourage that sort of thing with specially crafted counterfeiting laws. Under these laws, you can be arrested by Secret Service agents who, in proving their mettle to make the presidential security detail, will take you down in broad daylight in a swarm of dark suits and sunglasses while never ceasing to speak covertly into their earpieces.

Ouch!  Eric then goes on to wonder what, exactly, could be the point of this exercise, besides saving money on sunglasses and long overcoats.  Does Canada conceive of some gentlemanly copyright tribunal that will save it the gruesome martial expense and unpleasantness that Uncle Sam would gladly undertake if some pipsqueak tin-horn principality were to try to save a few bucks by just copying our bucks for their money? To use for their money, that is, replacing the trinkets and beads they presumably had been trading with until just then.

I wouldn’t rule that out.  But more likely, the Ministry of Money is being pretty clever here.  Why indeed not include copyright infringement as a belts-and-suspenders civil (and criminal) remedy, just another tool on top of a counterfeiting claim?  It could also be helpful if, for some reason, the elements of the criminal charge of counterfeiting could not be proved, or in order to make use of the various litigation tools available to civil litigants (whatever they may be in a quaint foreign land such as Canadia) but not to government prosecutors.

And then there’s the possibility that the fine artwork on the gelt, separate and apart from the cute, colorful Canadian “dollars” themselves, is being protected as well, for any number of reasons.

There are lots of possibilities, I guess, and in fact just before hitting PUBLISH, I figured I’d better check and see if anyone else has enunciated them.  And they did, and not so long ago, either, when Mike Masnick asked the same question and a whole bunch of people tried to answer it.  Yep.

But Eric is right about this:  All the clever rationales in the world aren’t worth a hill of Klondike bars compared to the fact that, well, some things you just don’t do, if you’re an A-List country, you know?

Copyright on the money?  Please.

Uncle Sam HandSpeak to the hand.

Knockoff News

Originally posted 2009-10-05 14:36:54. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Counterfeit Chic’s 69th edition of the karnival of kounterfeits was posted last week!

But, of course

Shoes are dropping all over Europe:

L’Oreal, the world’s largest cosmetics group, has launched legal action against eBay, alleging the online auctioneer does not do enough to combat the sale of counterfeits, the company said on Monday.

We’ve been genuinely interested in this issue for a long time — if you’re new, click here and here.

Credit card companies get green light to profit from, enable Internet piracy


Reuters reports that in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intl. Serv. Assn., 494 F.3d 788, 793 (9th Cir. 2007) the Ninth Circuit has affirmed (opinion here), 2-1, a ruling that there is no third-party copyright or trademark liability for credit card companies such as Visa and MasterCard or the banks that process their transactions, arising from their central — essential, really — role in the sale of counterfeit merchandise (including, as in this case, unauthorized copies of dirty pictures) on the Internet:

Writing for the majority, Judge Milan Smith Jr. said credit card processors, unlike Web search providers, do not direct online traffic. “They in no way assist or enable Internet users to locate infringing material, and they do not distribute it,” Smith wrote.

“Here, the infringement rests on the reproduction, alteration, display and distribution of Perfect 10’s images over the Internet,” Smith wrote.

If you didn’t guess from the title, I disagree with this. Why do judges keep missing this? The credit card companies are very much in the profit chain of infringing websites — websites that do nothing but sell counterfeit goods — and they make no serious effort, even when notified, to prevent this activity from occurring.

I am not just shooting from the hip here. I researched this issue extensively for a Very Important Client, and came to the conclusion that, under the right circumstances, liability should, indeed, attach. I cannot understand, for example, why the Ninth Circuit spends so much time focusing on the fact that the credit card companies do not themselves operate the infringing websites the way flea market operators (who have been held contributorily liable) operate the markets where counterfeit items are sold. That is besides the point. I find this language particularly frustrating:

[T]he ability to exert financial pressure does not give Defendants the right or ability to control the actual infringing activity at issue in this case [as would be required to find liabilty]. . . Defendants can only refuse to process credit card payments to the offending merchant within their payment network, or they can threaten to do so if the merchant does not comply with a request to alter content. While either option would likely have some indirect effect on the infringing activity, as we discuss at greater length in our analysis of the Grokster “stop or limit” standard below, so might any number of actions by any number of actors.

Since when is the fact that other things would also work mean that the law will not require a party in a position to prevent illegality — and which is profiting from the transactions — to do what is in its power?

I’m not alone; not by a long shot. The dissenter? Read More…

Best of 2010: Forget breakfast — eBay eats Tiffany’s lunch

Tiffany's NYCThe Second Circuit, unsurprisingly according to most commentators, has affirmed the decision of the Southern District of New York refusing to find eBay liable for contributory trademark infrintgement in the Tiffany v. eBay case.  I have been following the case since before it was filed (yeah, bitter as usual!) and have written bunches of posts on it — see, look?

In terms of the Second Circuit opinion itself, you can find that here.  If at some point I have something really original to say about it–after all the blogging is done by everyone else–you’ll be the first to know. But here’s a little roundup of “takes.” First, the WSJ Law Blog on the thrust of the story:

So long as eBay takes steps to remove listings it knows are bogus — and isn’t otherwise willfully blind to fraudulent sales — it can avoid liability, the court ruled.  Judge Robert Sack, writing for the three-judge panel, seemed to hang his hat on the “market”:

We are disposed to think, and the record suggests, that private market forces give eBay and those operating similar businesses a strong incentive to minimize the counterfeit goods sold on their Web sites . . .

EBay received many complaints from users claiming to have been duped into buying counterfeit Tiffany products sold on eBay. The risk of alienating these users gives eBay a reason to identify and remove counterfeit listings. Indeed, it has spent millions of dollars in that effort. . . .

Tiffany had argued that eBay knew it had a problem with counterfeit items being listed on its Web site and did little to clean it up. EBay insisted the obligation rested with the New York jeweler to identify and alert it to auctions of counterfeit Tiffany silver jewelry.

But that’s not the whole story, exactly, though it mostly is.  As Law.com’s Corporate Counsel explains:

The court sent the case back to the district level for more discussion of whether eBay may be guilty of false advertising because it promotes the presence of “Tiffany” products on its site in both direct advertisements and paid ads that pop up when users search for Tiffany on Google and other search engines.

Those ads could be deemed false, because eBay is aware that “a significant portion” of goods advertised as Tiffany items on eBay are actually counterfeit, the court said. (The exact percentage of counterfeit Tiffany items among all those advertised is in dispute). EBay has pointed out that its site contains a special “About Me” page for Tiffany (and controlled by Tiffany) in which users are told that any Tiffany item advertised for sale on eBay is likely to be a fake.

To win a false advertising claim, Tiffany will have to produce evidence that consumers were confused by the advertisements, the court said. So far, Tiffany has not produced that sort of evidence, which usually comes in the form of consumer surveys.

Read More…

Best of 2010: Gucci v. Frontline Processing: Giving credit for infringement where it’s due

First posted July 12, 2010.

This is an adaptation of a summary and analysis of the recent decision in Gucci America, Inc. v. Frontline Processing Corp., 2010 WL 2541367 (S.D.N.Y.), discussed here casually earlier. Jane Coleman’s definitive online treatise Secondary Trademark Infringement has recently been updated and the impact of this decision integrated into the text; a full update is planned for September. The complete analysis of Gucci, including full citations, can be found here.

The essential role played by credit card companies in online trademark infringement was recognized in Gucci America, Inc. v. Frontline Processing Corp. In that case, the court allowed contributory infringement claims to go forward against companies that had established credit card processing for an online counterfeit merchant. The payment for the counterfeit goods sold on its website was part of the infringing process, the court reasoned, drawing on Judge Kozinski’s dissent in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intern. Serv. Ass’n, and most of the infringing sales – of which the companies allegedly knew or should have known – were consummated using credit cards.

Gucci v. Frontline arose out of successful trademark infringement litigation brought by Gucci, the well-known manufacturer of luxury goods, against an online merchant operator of a website called “TheBagAddiction.com,” in which the owners admitted to liability for selling counterfeit Gucci products. Thereafter, Gucci turned to the three companies that had helped the merchant obtain credit card services, alleging both vicarious and contributory liability for trademark infringement. One of the three defendants, Durango Merchant Services acted as a middleman, while the other two, Frontline Processing Corporation and Woodforest National Bank, provided credit card processing services to the merchant.

In rejecting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court allowed the contributory liability claims to go forward as to all three defendants, but on different legal theories in accordance with their roles. As to Frontline and Woodforest, the court found the pleadings sufficient to allege contributory trademark infringement, based on their knowledge and control over the infringing activity on the website. As to the middleman, Durango, the court found the pleadings sufficient to allege contributory infringement based on an inducement theory.

As to Frontline and Woodforest, the court also found the pleadings stated a claim for contributory trademark infringement, based on the defendants’ knowledge and control over the infringing activity on the website. Citing eBay and Perfect 10, the Gucci court reiterated the direct control and monitoring test, stating that

[e]ven if a defendant does not seek out and intentionally induce a third-party to commit trademark infringement, it may still be held liable for the infringement if it supplied services with knowledge or by willfully shutting its eyes to the infringing conduct, while it had sufficient control over the instrumentality used to infringe.

Moreover, an allegation of the defendants’ general knowledge that infringement is taking place is not sufficient. “[A] service provider must have more than a general knowledge or reason to know that its service is being used to sell counterfeit goods,” the court emphasized, citing further language in Tiffany that “’Some contemporary knowledge of which particular listings are infringing or will infringe in the future is necessary.'”

Both credit card processing companies either knew or should have known that they were servicing an infringing site, under the facts alleged, the court concluded. In both cases, a Durango agent had a dual role as both an employee of his company and a sales representative for the two credit card companies, and the court consequently accepted the allegations charging the companies with his knowledge. Thus, regarding Frontline, Gucci alleged that that company was aware of customers’ written acknowledgement of purchasing “replicas” as directed by the Durango agent. Read More…