Comparative Intellectual Property & Information Technology

Comparative IT & IP

Fordham Law - Spring 2010

Pablo A. Palazzi

Administrative matters

Required Reading:

Casebook: Graeme B. Dinwoodie, William O. Hennessey, Shira Perlmutter, and Graeme W. Austin, International Intellectual Property Law and Policy, Second Edition (2008).

Website: Most of the cases for this course are available at www.comparativeiplaw.com. The website may be updated during the course. There is also an online discussion list.

Class Schedule: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday from 9:00 to 10:55 a.m.

Grading: Grading shall be based on an open book 48 hour take-home examination, or alternatively the writing of a paper of 15-20 pages. The paper can be on the topics discussed in class or from some other legal issue related to Information Technology Law or Intellectual Property Law and should address the issue from a comparative law perspective. We will discuss this requirement in more depth during class 4. You must submit an abstract describing your paper topic by February 5. You must submit an advanced draft paper by March 5. You must submit the final paper by April 5. Class participation will be taken into consideration to adjust grading.

Office hours: Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or want to set up a time to talk.

Office number: 219 (33 W 60^th Street).

Phone: 646-312-8769

Email: pablo@palazzi.com.ar

Reading assignments

Class 1 (Jan. 25): Introduction to Comparative Law and Legal Traditions. Introduction to Comparative Intellectual Property & Information Technology.

Reading:

European Union, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

Class 2 (Jan. 27):

DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY

Readings:

EUROPE: ECHR, Von Hannover v Germany [2004] ECHR 294 (p. 48 to 85).

THE NETHERLANDS: District Court of Amsterdam, Willem-Alexander (Prince of Orange) vs. Associated Press (2009).

EUROPE: ECHR, Peck v. United Kingdom (9-33 and 98-113).

USA: Boring v. Google, Inc., 2:08-cv-00694-ARH (W.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2009).

EUROPE: ECHR, read articles 1 and 8.

European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights (articles 7 and 8).

Optional reading:

European Union, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (skim, read sections 25 & 26).

Nimmer, The Right of Privacy, 19 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 203 (1954).

USA: Whalen v. Roe 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (majority opinion, sections I to IV).

Browse the following web sites:

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/privacy/

http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/personality/index.asp

Privacy in public places:

USA: Heath v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 732 F. Supp. 1145, 1151 (S.D. Fla. 1990).

USA: Int'l Union v. Garner, 601 F. Supp. 187, 192 (M.D. Tenn. 1985).

USA: Jackson v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 574 F. Supp. 10, 14 (S.D. Ohio 1983).

CANADA: Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa Inc., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591.

FRANCE: Ronald Sokol, Freedom of Expression in France: The Mitterrand-Dr. Gubler Affair, 7 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 5 (sections I to XII - those related to the judicial decision). Read also the summary of the case ECHR, Plon v. France.

Eva Steiner, The New President, His Wife and the Media: Pushing Away the Limits of Privacy Law's Protection in France?, vol 13.1 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW, (March 2009) .

USA: California Civil Code Section 1708.8

Criminal Procedure and Privacy

USA: Smith v Maryland 442 US 735 (1979).

EUROPE: ECHR, Malone v UK (1984).

SPAIN: Supreme Court of Spain, TS, Sala Segunda, de lo Penal, S de 20 May. 2008.

Class 3 (Jan 28):

DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY (2)

IP address as personal data

EU: WP 29, Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data, Document WP 136.

EU: Peter Fleischer, Are IP addresses "Personal Data”?

USA: State v. Reid, 194 N.J. 386, 945 A.2d 26 (2008).

USA: Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 2009 WL 1794400 (W.D. Wash. June 23, 2009).

Social Networking and Privacy

EU: WP 163 Opinion 5/2009 on online social networking (2009).

CANADA: Stoddart, Remarks at a Press Conference on the Facebook Investigation (2009).

CANADA: Privacy commissioner of Canada, CIPPIC v. Facebook report (html version) (PDF version) (pages 1-10, 58-64 and 89-91).

USA: Facebook Privacy Policy

USA: Bobbie Johnson, Privacy no longer a social norm, says Facebook founder, guardian.co.uk, January 11, 2010.

Workplace Privacy

US: Mclaren v. Microsoft, 1999 Tex. App. Lexis 4103 (Tex. Crt. of App., May 28, 1999).

EUROPE: Copland v. The United Kingdom [2007] ECHR 253 (3 April 2007).

FRANCE: Court of Cassation, Nikon case.

Optional reading:

Genetic Testing

EUROPE: ECHR, S. AND MARPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM [2008] ECHR 1581 (4 December 2008).

Browse this web site http://dnasaves.org/dna_law.php

USA: In re C.T.L, 722 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. 2006).

ICELAND: Icelandic Supreme Court- Guomundsdottir v. Iceland, No. 151/2003 (Nov. 27, 2003) (118 Harv. L. Rev. 810, 2004).

Is there a right to forget history?

EFF, Convicted Murderer To Wikipedia: Shhh!, (EFF web site, November 2009).

Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal.App. 285, 297 P. 91 (1931).

Willian v. Columbia Country, 280 F3d 1160 (7^th Cir., 2002).

International issues in Data Protection Law - Sale of personal data

Canada: Complaint under PIPEDA against Accusearch Inc., doing business as Abika.com

USA: FTC v. Accusearch

Abrahami v. Reader Digest

Data breach laws

GENERAL: Maurushat, Alana, Data Breach Notification Law Across the World from California to Australia (April 4, 2009). Privacy Law and Business International, February 2009, (browse this list).

USA: California Data Breach law

EUROPE: e-Privacy Directive, 2009/136/EC.

Class 4 (Feb. 1): MORAL RIGHTS

Class PPT presentation (first part – second part)

Paper topics

Readings:

Casebook, pages 658-81 and 642-43.

FRANCE: Intellectual Property Code, (Articles L121-1 to L121-9).

FRANCE: Jean-Luc Piotraut, An Authors' Based Copyright Law: The Fairness and Morality of French and American Law Compared, 24 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 549, 584 (2006) (pages 595 to 615).

USA: Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 538 F.2d 14 (1976).

USA: Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988.

USA: Visual Artists Rights Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106A.

USA: Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003).

Class PPT file

Optional reading:

SPAIN: Spain: Copyright, Law, ( sections 14 to 16).

MEXICO: Copyright Act, (sections 18 to 23).

FRANCE: Plon v. Hugo (NYTIMES & Guardian).

FRANCE: Turner Entertainment Co. v. Huston, CA Versailles, civ. ch., December 19, 1994, translated in Ent. L. Rep., Mar. 1995.

USA: California Art Preservation Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 987.

USA: New York Artists' Authorship Rights Act, N.Y. Arts & Cult. Aff. Law §§ 14.51-14.59.

USA: Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Foundation, Inc. v. Buchel, 08-2199 (1st Cir. 2010).

USA: Clean Flicks of Colo., LLC v. Soderbergh, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (2006).

USA: Choe v. Fordham Univ. Sch. of Law, 920 F. Supp. 44, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10027 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).

Class 5 (Feb. 3): DATABASE (AND INFORMATION) PROTECTION

Class PPT presentation

Readings:

Casebook, pages 681-695.

Copyright

USA: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

BELGIUM: Google v Copiepresse SCRL, Tribunal de Première Instance, Brussels, Belgium, (13 February 2007).

Sui generis

EU: Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the Legal Protection of Databases (articles 1, 3 to 5 and 7 to 11).

EU: Cases C-203/02 The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v. William Hill Organization Ltd, (numbers 23 to 96 of the decision).

MEXICO: Copyright Act, sections 107 to 110.

Misappropriation & Unfair Competition

USA: International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 US 215 (read this edited version)

Scraping (contracts & term of use)

eBay v. Bidder's Edge, 100 F.Supp.2d 1058 (ND Cal. 2000).

Optional reading:

UK: Ladbroke (Football) Limited v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273

AUSTRALIA: IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2009] HCA 14 (22 April 2009)

CANADA: CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339

EU: IVIR, The Database file, http://www.ivir.nl/files/database/index.html.

AUSTRALIA: Telstra Corporation Limited v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 612

Facebook Inc. v. Power Ventures Inc., No. 08-5780 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2009).

EUROPE: Gunnar Karnell, The Nordic Catalogue Rule, in Protecting Works of Fact, Kluwer Law international, pp. 67-71.

Gervais, Daniel J., Feist Goes Global: A Comparative Analysis Of The Notion Of Originality In Copyright Law, Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., Vol. 49, p. 949, Summer 2002.

Reichman, Jerome H. and Samuelson, Pamela, Intellectual Property Rights in Data (1997).

CANADA: Robertson v. Thomson Corp, 2006 SCC 43, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 363, 274 O.L.R. (4th) 138.

USA: NY Times v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001).

THE NETHERLANDS: Heg, Mulder & Stam v. De Volkskrant, No D 3 (Amsterdam Dist. Ct. 3d 1997), translated in 22 Colum.-Vla J.L. & Arts 177, 181-89 (1998).

FRANCE: Union of French Journalists v. SDV Plurimedia, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Strasbourg, Ordonnance de Refere Commercial, (1998), translated in 22 Colum.-Vla J.L. & Arts 177, 199 (1998)

GERMANY: Freelens v. Der Spiegel, 308 O. 284/96 (Reg. Ct of Hamburg 1997), translated in 22 Colum.-Vla J.L. & Arts 177, 178 (1998).

Estelle Derclaye, Can and should misappropriation also protect databases? A comparative approach, in Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007, pages 83-108.

Class 6 (Feb. 4): LIABILITY OF INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES

USA: CDA section 230

USA: DMCA section 512 (a) to (d).

USA: Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).

EUROPE: Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce).

GERMANY: Thomas Hoeren, Liability for Online Services in Germany, 10 German Law Journal No. 5 (1 May 2009).

ARGENTINA: Elizabeth Compa and Eduardo Bertoni, Emerging Patterns in Internet Freedom of Expression: Comparative Research Findings in Argentina and Abroad, CELE, Palermo University, Buenos Aires, Argentina (2009).

Optional reading:

AUSTRALIA: Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited [2010] FCA 24 (4 February 2010).

NORWAY: District Court of Asker og Baerum , Bonnier Amigo Music Norway AS v Telenor Telecom Solutions AS (November 2009)

FRANCE: Editions du Seuil et al v. Google (District Court of Paris, Dec 18, 2009).

SWEDEN: Judgment, 2009-04-17, Stockholm district court (The Piratebay case). (pages 14-16, 54-57).

CANADA: Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 45 (sections 1 to 26 and 92 to 128).

UK: Metropolitan International Schools Limited v. Google UK Limited, [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB), 16 July 2009.

UK: Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001] QB 201, 26th March 1999.

UK: Bunt v Tilley (and AOL UK Ltd. and Tiscali UK Ltd. and British Telecommunications [2007] 1 WLR 1243, 10/03/2006

EUROPE: Peguera, Miquel, The DMCA Safe Harbors and Their European Counterparts: A Comparative Analysis of Some Common Problems (September 4, 2009). Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts.

F. Casarosa, Wikipedia: Exemption from Liability in Case of Immediate Removal of Unlawful Materials, (2009) 6:3 SCRIPTed 669.

Class 7 (Feb. 8): TRADEMARKS AND DOMAIN NAMES

Casebook, pages 1160-1228.

ICANN, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, (1999).

WIPO, Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions

WIPO, World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman. Case No. D99-0001.

WIPO, Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No. D2000-0003.

WIPO, J. Crew International v. Crew.com, Case No. D2000-0054.

WIPO, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", Case No. D2000-0847.

Optional reading:

UK: L'Oreal SA & Ors v EBay International AG & Ors [2009] EWHC 1094 (Ch) (22 May 2009).

USA: Tiffany v. Ebay (summary of case from this blog)

USA: Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v. Akanoc Solutions

Graeme Dinwoodie, (National) Trademark Laws and the (Non-National) Domain Name System, 21 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 495 (2000).

ICANN, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

ICANN, Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

WIPO, Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona v. Barcelona.com Inc., Case No. D2000-0505.

USA: Barcelona.com Incorporated v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona (The City Council of Barcelona, Spain) 330 F.3d 617, Civ. No. 02-1396 (4th Cir., June 2, 2003). Read summary: http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case321.cfm

WIPO, Ty Inc. v. Joseph Parvin d/b/a Domains For Sale, Case No. D2000-0688.

WIPO, Yahoo! Inc. v. Jorge O. Kirovsky, Case No. D2000-0428.

WIPO, City Views Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / Xander, Jeduyu, ALGEBRALIVE, Case No. D2009-0643.

WIPO, Bruce Springsteen -v- Jeff Burgar and Bruce Springsteen Club, Case No. D2000-1532.

WIPO, Mercury Radio Arts, Inc. and Glenn Beck v. Isaac Eiland-Hall, Case No. D2009-1182

Class 8 (Feb. 10):

PROTECTION OF WELL-KNOWN AND FAMOUS TRADEMARKS

Readings:

Read cases from casebook pages. 93-101, 175-215 and 307-317.

Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, article 6 bis

TRIPS Agreement article 16 (3)

WIPO, Recommendation concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks, adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (PDF) (1999).

SOUTH AFRICA: McDonald's Corp. v. Joburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd., 1997 S. African L. Rep. 1 (1996).

USA: Maison Prunier v. Prunier's Restaurant & Café, Inc. 159 Misc. 551 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1936).

USA: Vaudable v. Montmartre, Inc., 20 Misc.2d 757, 193 N.Y.S.2d 332 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1959).

USA: Grupo Gigante S.A. De CV v. Dallo & Co.,. Inc., 391 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004).

USA: ITC. Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 482 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2007). Certified question answered by ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 9 N.Y.3d 467, 880 N.E.2d 851, 2007 N.Y. LEXIS 3709, 850 N.Y.S.2d 366 (2007 - html).

Optional reading:

JAMAICA: McDONALD´s CORP. v. McDONALD´S CORP. LTD. (1977) FSR 200 (Supreme Court)

CANADA: Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772

CANADA: Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltée, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 824, 2006 SCC 23.

Class 9 (Feb.11): COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING

FTC: Statement of Policy Regarding Comparative Advertising (August 13, 1979).

INTA, Comparative advertising, (March 3, 1998).

EU: Directive 97/55/EC of European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising (skim and bring to class, articles 2a and 3a).

USA: Pizza Hut Inc v. Papa John's International 227 F.3d 489 (2000).

EUROPE: L'Oréal and Ots v Bellure and Others (ECJ - First Chamber) C-487/07.

EUROPE: Case C-112/99, Toshiba Europe GmbH v Katun Germany GmbH [2001] E.C.R. I-7945.

AUSTRALIA: Gillette Australia Pty Ltd v Energizer Australia Pty Limited [2005] FCA 1647 (17 November 2005).

USA: Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Duracell, Inc. and The Gillette Company, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9313 (2002).

ARGENTINA: The Gillette Company v. Energizar Argentina S.A., (March 26, 2009).

ARGENTINA: Pepsi v. The Coca Cola Company (October 21, 1998).

Optional reading:

SOUTH AFRICA: Abbott Laboratories and others v. UAP Crop Care (Pty) Limited. PDF document in Parts 1 - 2 – 3 - 4 (this case was overruled in BMW v Verimark though not expressly referring to comparative advertising).

EUROPE: Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft C-44/01 [2003] ECR I-3095.

EUROPE: Case C‑533/06 O2Holdings and O2 [2008] ECR I‑4231.

UK: O2 Holdings Ltd & Anor v Hutchison 3G Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1656 (05 December 2006).

USA: U-Haul International Inc v. Jartran Inc., 681 F2d 1159.

USA: Alpo Petfoods v. Ralston Purina Company, 997 F.2d 949 (OpenJurist)

USA: Avis Rent a Car System v The Hertz Corporation, 782 F.2d 381 (1986).

Charlotte J. Romano, Comparative Advertising in the United States and in France, 25 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 371 (2005).

Class 10 (Feb.16): LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO IP RIGHTS

Read cases from casebook pages 242-248, 254-254 and the following cases:

CANADA: Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin-Michelin & Cie v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), [1997] 2 F.C. 306.

UK: Miss World Ltd. v Channel Four Television Corporation [2007] EWHC 982 (Pat) (16 April 2007)

SOUTH AFRICA: Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International [2005] ZACC 7 (1-11 and 41-65; see design in page 5/6 of PDF).

ECHR: Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria,

USA: Copyright Act § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.

Optional reading:

P. Bernt Hugenholtz & Ruth L. Okediji, Conceiving an international instrument on Limitations and exceptions to copyright - final report - March 06, 2008

USA: Mattel v. MCA Records, Inc. 296 F.3d 894

USA: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994). Read lyrics here.

Class 11 (Feb.17): INTERNET SURVEILLANCE. COPYRIGHT, FILTERING TECHNOLOGIES, NET NEUTALITY AND “DEEP PACKET INSPECTION”

BELGIUM: SCRL Société Belge des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs (SABAM) v. S.A. Tiscali- Brussels Court of First Instance -Decision of 26 November 2004 - English Translation of Sabam v. S.A. Tiscali by Hughes, Justin, Mady, Fran and Bourrouilhou, Julien, 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 1279 (2008).

DENMARK: IFPI Denmark v. DMT2 A/S [Bailiff's Court of Frederiksberg (Copenhagen)] (February 14, 2008). Spang-Hanssen, Henrik Stakemann, Translation of Danish (Thepiratebay.org case).

THE NETHERLANDS: District Court of Amsterdam, Piratebay case (July, 30 2009).

NORWAY: Bonnier Amigo Music et al v. Telenor case, (Norway Court, deputy judge, November 6, 2009).

ITALY: Cour of Casation, criminal chamber III, The Piratebay case (2009) (news – text of the case).

USA: Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63620 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2007) (Torrentspy case).

FRANCE: French Constitutional Council, Decision n° 2009-580 of June 10th 2009 (English - French).

SWEEDEN: Mannheimer Swartling, Court Orders Black Internet to Cut Internet Access to Pirate Bay, ILO October 2009.

Optional reading:

Clive Thompson, Google's China Problem (and China's Google Problem), NYTimes, April 23, 2006.

Access Denied The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering Edited by Ronald J. Deibert, John G. Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski and Jonathan Zittrain, http://opennet.net/accessdenied.

Tim Berns Lee, No Snooping, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/NoSnooping.html

Browse this web site about DPI: http://29844.vws.magma.ca/ (think about what is DPI and its impact on web users)

CANADA: Assistant Commissioner recommends Bell Canada inform customers about Deep Packet Inspection, PIPEDA Case Summary #2009-010.

FRANCE: French Constitutional Council, Decision n° 2009-590 of October.

Paul Ohm, The Rise and Fall of Invasive ISP Surveillance, 2009 University of Illinois Law Review.

Rob Frieden, Internet Packet Sniffing and Its Impact on the Network Neutrality Debate and the Balance of Power Between Intellectual Property Creators and Consumers, 18 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 633 (2008).

Catherine J. K. Sandoval, Disclosure, Deception, and Deep-Packet Inspection: The Role of the Federal Trade Commission Act’s Deceptive Conduct Prohibitions in the Net Neutrality Debate, Fordham Law Review, Volume 78 Number 2 (November 2009).

Jeremy de Beer and Christopher D. Clemmer, Global trends in online copyright enforcement: a non-neutral role for network intermediaries?, 49 Jurimetrics J. 375 (2009).

Michael P. Murtagh, The FCC, the DMCA, and Why Takedown Notices Are Not Enough, 61 Hastings L.J. 233 (2009).

Class 12 (18/2): KEYWORD ONLINE ADVERTISING -METATAGS

Read comments from casebook pages 294-298 about “trademark use”.

FRANCE: Nanterre Court, Societe des hotels Meridien v. SARL Google France, December 16, 2004 (http://www.juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=631).

FRANCE: Stephen OTT, AdWords Lawsuits in France - Trademarks as keywords illegal?

USA: Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. 562 F.3d 123 (2009).

GERMANY: Federal Supreme Court, (Bundesgerichtshof) 18 May 2006 - Case No. I ZR 183/03 (“Impuls”).

AUSTRIA: Supreme Court Oberster Gerichtshof 19 December 2005 - Case No. 4Ob 194/05s (“Google”).

EUROPE: ECJ Case 236/08 - Advocate General Opinion in “Google France”. ECJ Decision (not issued yet).

Optional reading:

INTRODUCTION: Steven LEVY, Secret of Googlenomics: Data-Fueled Recipe Brews Profitability, Wired 17.06.

FRANCE: Laurence Denis-Leroy, Liability for Adwords services in France, Computer Law Review International - CRI Issue 4 of August 15, 2008 p 97 – 128.

Goldman, Eric, Brand Spillovers. Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-01; Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 22, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1324822

USA: Hearts on Fire Co., LLC v. Blue Nile, Inc., 2009 WL 794482 (D. Mass. Mar. 27, 2009).

AUSTRALIA: ACCC alleges misleading and deceptive conduct by Trading Post and Google (2008).

A Rühmkorf, eBay on the European Playing Field: A Comparative Case Analysis of L’Oréal v eBay, (2009) 6:3 SCRIPTed 685.