November 2007
Technology Law Update November 2007
In this issue:
- Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Infringement of Unregistered Copyrights Negates District Court Authority to Approve Class Action Settlement of Authors' "Tasini" Claims
- CDA Section 230 Immunity Includes Service Provider's Refusal to Remove Content at Request of Original Information Provider
- CDA Section 230 Inapplicable to Headlines "Authored" by Interactive Service Provider
- Automatic Circumvention of Web Site "CAPTCHA" (i.e., "Enter This Word") Technology Violates DMCA Anticircumvention Provisions
- Under UK Copyright Law, "Making Available" of Infringing Video Likely Takes Place Where Server is Located
- Dual Recovery of Statutory Damages Under Copyright and Lanham Acts Permitted For Distinct Injuries
- Blogger Entitled to Lanham Act Defense for News Reporting and Commentary
- First Amendment Shields Online Fantasy Baseball Site From Right of Publicity Claims for Use of Player Names and Statistics
- Under New York Law, Notice to Anonymous Blogger and Scrutiny of Merits Must Precede Disclosure of Identity
- Authorized Computer Access by Departing Employee Not CFAA Violation
- Employee E-Mails to Personal Attorney Using Company E-Mail Address That is Subject to Monitoring Are Not Privileged
- Bank Privacy Policy Constitutes Part of Bargained-For Exchange Where Loan Guarantor Relied On Policy in Providing Financial Data
- Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Electronic Privacy Claims Under Policy Containing “Online Activities” Exclusion
- Software Company That Provided Leads to Marketer That Sent Unsolicited Faxes Referencing Company’s Product Not Liable as “Sender” Under TCPA
- Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act Section 2257 Reporting Requirements Held Unconstitutional
- Predictive Oral Representations of Future Performance By Internet Marketing Company Are Unenforceable
- Arbitration Clause In Software License Agreement Not Applicable to Claims Alleging Both Software and Hardware Malfunction
- Forum Selection Clause Applies to Telephone Transactions Where Purchaser Accessed Seller’s Web Site Privacy Policy
- Out-of-State Entity That Directed Web Site Hacking Activities to Tennessee Forum Subject to Long-Arm Jurisdiction
- Infringing Web Site Containing Pay-Per-Click Links Subject to Illinois Long-Arm Jurisdiction
- Opinions and Developments of Note
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Infringement of Unregistered Copyrights Negates District Court Authority to Approve Class Action Settlement of Authors' "Tasini" Claims
A district court that lacks jurisdiction over claims involving the infringement of unregistered copyrights does not have authority to approve a class action settlement of such claims. In re: Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation, Nos. 05-5943-cv(L), 06-0223-cv(CON) (2d Cir. Nov. 29, 2007). The appeals court vacated the class action settlement that included claims involving both registered and unregistered copyrights, reiterating prior rulings in the Second Circuit to the effect that the copyright registration requirement for the maintenance of a federal copyright infringement suit is jurisdictional. The appeals court rejected the argument that jurisdiction over a copyright infringement suit is proper where at least one of the copyrights-in-suit is registered, explicitly rejecting the view expressed by the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com (9th Cir. 2007). The appeals court further ruled that in a class action copyright infringement litigation, each class member's claim must arise from a registered copyright. The court also rejected the argument that unregistered copyright claims could be sustained under the district court's supplemental jurisdiction, ruling that the supplemental jurisdiction statute does not extend to deficient federal claims.
http://www.thelen.com/tlu/InReLiteraryWorks.pdf
Editor's Note: This ruling stems from the long-running litigation brought by freelance authors with respect to the inclusion of their works in electronic databases, which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York Times Co. v. Tasini (U.S. 2001), which recognized the authors' copyright claims in principle.
CDA Section 230 Immunity Includes Service Provider's Refusal to Remove Content at Request of Original Information Provider
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunizes a Web site operator from liability for defamation, where the operator refuses to comply with a user's request to remove defamatory content previously posted by the user. Global Royalties v. Xcentric Ventures, No. 07-956, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77551 (D. Ariz. Oct. 10, 2007). The court granted the operator's motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the defamed party, rejecting the argument that by refusing to remove the defamatory content, the operator "adopted" the user's statements and could be considered an "information content provider" with respect to them.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/GlobalRoyaltiesVXcentric.pdf
Editor's Note: This is just the latest in a series of cases involving BadBusinessBureau.com a/k/a the RipoffReport.com, which encourages the posting of "Ripoff Reports" complaining about the business practices of companies. BadBusinessBureau.com has repeatedly invoked the immunity provisions of the CDA in an effort to immunize itself from defamation liability, with mixed results. The court distinguished this case from a prior, unsuccessful attempt to invoke the CDA in HyCite Corp. v. BadBusinessBureau.com (D. Ariz. 2005). In that case, the plaintiff alleged that BadBusinessBureau.com produced editorial comments, titles and other material contained in the alleged defamatory reports. In this case, while the court noted that BadBusinessBureau.com provided a drop down menu of titles that included the label "con artist," the court found it to be "minor and passive" activity that would not defeat CDA immunity. Note that the result in this case is precisely the opposite of another recent case involving BadBusinesBureau.com, Children of America v. Magedson, outlined below.
CDA Section 230 Inapplicable to Headlines "Authored" by Interactive Service Provider
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is not applicable to headlines authored by an interactive service provider which are added to the otherwise unaltered comments of its users. Children of America, Inc. v. Magedson, No. CV 2007-003720 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Oct. 31, 2007). The court refused to grant summary judgment dismissing those portions of the plaintiff's defamation complaint that alleged the "authoring" of certain headlines by the interactive service provider defendants, relying on the statement in Carafano v. Metrosplash (9th Cir. 2003) to the effect that a provider is entitled to the protection of Section 230 "so long as it does not also function as an 'information content provider' for the portion of the statement or publication at issue."
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/ChildrenVMagedson.pdf
Automatic Circumvention of Web Site "CAPTCHA" (i.e., "Enter This Word") Technology Violates DMCA Anticircumvention Provisions
Software that automatically circumvents the "CAPTCHA" technology (described below) deployed on a ticket seller's Web site to limit access to human users is a device that violates the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Technologies, Inc. No. 2:07-cv-02534, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78427 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2007). The court held that the online ticket seller was likely to prevail on its claim that the defendant's software violated the DMCA, and was entitled to a preliminary injunction against the distribution or use of the defendant's software program. The court ruled, among other things, that the use of the software on the ticket seller's site violated the ticket seller's posted terms of use that prohibited use for commercial purposes, prohibited access by automated devices, prohibited interference with the proper working of the site, and limited frequency of access. The court also ruled that copies of pages of the site made in excess of the authorized number provided in the terms of use constituted copyright infringement.
http://www.thelen.com/tlu/TicketmasterVRMG_Oct_16_2007.pdf
Editor's Note: CAPTCHA is an acronym for "Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart," a term trademarked by Carnegie Mellon University. This kind of technology is usually presented to a user in the form of an image containing distorted letters and numbers that the user must correctly decipher and enter in order to obtain access to a Web site or a particular function or area of a Web site.
Under UK Copyright Law, "Making Available" of Infringing Video Likely Takes Place Where Server is Located
Under UK copyright law, the infringing act of "making available" an unauthorized copy of a video on a video file-sharing service takes place in the jurisdiction where the service's server is located. Explorologist Limited v. Sapient, No. 2:07-cv-01848, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79754 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2007). The court noted that its conclusion on this point of UK copyright law suggested that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed, because it alleged that the video was uploaded to a server likely located in the United States. The court declined, however, to dismiss the plaintiff's UK copyright law claim in order to give the parties the opportunity to submit additional authorities on the question of UK law. The court also noted that the parties had not addressed other issues relevant to the viability of the plaintiff's claim, including the issue of whether the defendant's act of uploading the video to the server was actionable if it took place outside the UK.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/ExplorologistVSapient.pdf
Editor's Note: This case involves a video clip of psychic Uri Geller, which was included in an upload to the YouTube video-sharing site. Explorologist claims that it is the owner of the copyright in the video; the defendant Sapient is a member of a "debunker" organization. The disputed video is also the subject of a separate action brought by Sapient against Geller and Explorologist, alleging the issuance of a wrongful takedown notice to YouTube under the DMCA. The case is captioned Doe a/k/a Sapient v. Geller, No. 3:2007cv02478 (N.D. Cal. complaint filed May 8, 2007).
Dual Recovery of Statutory Damages Under Copyright and Lanham Acts Permitted For Distinct Injuries
A software maker is entitled to dual recovery under the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act against an individual who sold and distributed counterfeit software, where the software maker suffered distinct injuries to different interests as a result of the infringement. Microsoft Corp. v. Evans, No. 1:06-cv-01745, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77088 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007). The court granted the software maker’s motion for default judgment against the defendant on its copyright and trademark claims. In an issue of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the court found an award of statutory damages for both trademark and copyright does not violate the rule against double recoveries, particularly where multiples wrongs have been committed by the defendant and actual damages are difficult or impossible to calculate.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/MicrosoftVEvans.pdf
Blogger Entitled to Lanham Act Defense for News Reporting and Commentary
A blogger who wrote an article critical of an online business with the intent to report what he believed was a newsworthy story for consumers is protected by the Lanham Act statutory defense for "news reporting and news commentary." BidZirk v. Smith, No. 6:06-109, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78484 (D. S.C. Oct. 22, 2007). The court dismissed the plaintiff's Lanham Act claim, applying a "functional analysis" that looks at content and intent, not format, in determining whether a party is engaged in news reporting or news commentating. The court concluded that the blogger's intent to convey information to the public was evidenced by his description of the positive and negative aspects of his experience doing business with the plaintiff, his background research, and his provision of a checklist for readers to use in deciding to do business with similar companies.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/BidZirkVSmith.pdf
Editor's Note: Another interesting point in this opinion is the treatment of the individual plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claim, for the inclusion of a link to an article and photograph concerning the individual plaintiffs' wedding which were hosted on a public Web site. The court dismissed this claim as well, on the ground that the individual plaintiffs had consented to the public Web site's public display of the article and photograph to publicize the opening of their business. The court found that "a person who places a photograph on the Internet precisely intends to forsake and renounce all privacy rights to such imagery," particularly where they failed to employ "protective measures or devices" to limit access to the imagery.
First Amendment Shields Online Fantasy Baseball Site From Right of Publicity Claims for Use of Player Names and Statistics
An online fantasy baseball Web site's use of player names and statistics is protected by the First Amendment from claims of infringement of the players' rights of publicity. C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., No. 06-3357/3358, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 24192 (8th Cir. Oct. 16, 2007). The appeals court upheld the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the fantasy site, ruling that while the use of the players' names and statistics violated their rights of publicity under Missouri law, the use of that information was First Amendment protected speech. The court also relied on the opinion in Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball (Cal. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2001) in concluding that the "recitation and discussion of factual data concerning the athletic performance of [players on Major League Baseball's website] command a substantial public interest, and, therefore, is a form of expression due substantial constitutional protection."
The opinion is discussed in more detail on the Technology Law Update blog.Opinion http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/10/063357P.pdf
Under New York Law, Notice to Anonymous Blogger and Scrutiny of Merits Must Precede Disclosure of Identity
Under New York law, a plaintiff claiming defamation by an anonymous blogger is not entitled to pre-action discovery of the blogger's identity from the blog hosting service provider until notice of the application has been given to the blogger, and the plaintiff demonstrates the existence of a meritorious cause of action. In re Application Pursuant to CPLR 3102 of Pamela Greenbaum v. Google, No. 102063/07, 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7274 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty Oct. 23, 2007). Noting that the blogger had been given the requisite notice and appeared via counsel, the court ruled that the plaintiff, a public official, had failed to make a sufficient showing under NY CPLR 3102(c) of a meritorious cause of action and a need for the requested information. Analyzing the blog posts in question, the court concluded that the blogger's comments were a matter of interest to her community and to the public at large, and that her comments, as well as those of anonymous commentators on the blog, were protected opinion.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/GreenbaumVGoogle.pdf
Editor's Note: In the absence of a standard set by New York appellate courts for evaluating applications for disclosure of the identity of anonymous Internet speakers, the court relied on the opinion of the New Jersey appellate court in Dendrite v. Doe (App. Div. 2001), in requiring that the anonymous party be given notice. The court declined to follow Dendrite's holding concerning the application of a "summary judgment standard" in evaluating the plaintiff's allegations of defamation, however, because it concluded that a facial review of the complaint showed that it was not meritorious within the meaning of NY CPLR 3102(c).
Authorized Computer Access by Departing Employee Not CFAA Violation
A departing employee, who copied proprietary files while still having full access to his employer's protected computer databases did not access information “without authorization” or otherwise "exceed authorized access" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Diamond Power Int’l, Inc. v. Davidson, No. 1:04-cv-1708, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73032 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 1, 2007). The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the CFAA claims, but let stand other related trade secret and contract claims based upon the employee’s forwarding of confidential company information to his new employer. The court found that the employee could not be liable under the CFAA because there was no dispute that he was authorized to initially access the company computers and that his level of authorized access included permission to obtain the specific data in question. The court, in reaching its conclusion, recognized a split in the circuits as to the interpretation of this aspect of the CFAA. Nevertheless, the court rejected the plaintiff's argument, based upon the Seventh Circuit opinion in International Airport Centers, L.L.C. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir 2006), that an employee exceeds his authorized access when he obtains company information for an allegedly improper purpose.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/DiamondPowerVDavidson.pdf
Employee E-Mails to Personal Attorney Using Company E-Mail Address That is Subject to Monitoring Are Not Privileged
An employee’s messages to his attorney sent via the employee e-mail system, a practice which was against company policy and subject to monitoring by the employer, are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. Scott v. Beth Israel Medical Center Inc., No. 602736/06, 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7114 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty Oct. 17, 2007). The court denied the employee’s motion for a protective order barring the employer from viewing his e-mails concerning the instant lawsuit sent to his attorney from his employee account. In finding that the employee waived privilege, the court concluded that the employer had an e-mail policy banning personal use and that the employee, as an administrator, had constructive notice that the employer had the right to monitor e-mail communications over its network. The court also rejected the employee’s work product doctrine argument based upon his attorney’s confidentiality notice e-mail footer, holding that the attorney’s pro forma confidentiality notice at the end of the e-mails was “insufficient and not a reasonable precaution” that would provide a qualified privilege against disclosure.
Opinion http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_27429.htm
Editor's Note: This case is likely to add fuel to the fire for attorneys challenging an assertion of the attorney-client privilege. Companies should consider adding to their e-mail policies a statement that the use of corporate e-mail to communicate with personal attorneys could result in a loss of any privilege that might otherwise attach to the communication.
Bank Privacy Policy Constitutes Part of Bargained-For Exchange Where Loan Guarantor Relied On Policy in Providing Financial Data
A bank's privacy policy constituted part of a loan guarantor's bargained-for exchange with the bank, where the guarantor alleges that he relied upon the policy in providing confidential financial information to the bank in connection with the guarantee. Meyer v. Christie, No. 07-2230, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79285 (D. Kan. Oct. 24, 2007). The court declined to dismiss the guarantor's breach of contract claim arising out of a bank officer's alleged disclosure and mischaracterization of the guarantor's financial information, rejecting the bank's argument that its privacy policy was "nothing more than a mere unilateral statement of company policy." The court also rejected the bank's argument that the contract claim based on its privacy policy failed for lack of consideration because the bank was required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide notice of the privacy policy to customers. The court noted that the provision of the Act relied upon by the bank only required it to disclose its privacy policies, but did not dictate the terms of those policies.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/MeyerVChristie.pdf
Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Electronic Privacy Claims Under Policy Containing “Online Activities” Exclusion
An insurance policy that covers personal injury liability, with an exclusion for “online activities,” defined, in part, as “providing Internet access to third parties," does not provide coverage for an Web entity’s violations of federal computer privacy laws. Netscape Communications Corp. v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 06-00198, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78400 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2007). The court granted the insurer’s summary judgment motion, ruling that, based upon the policy exclusion, the insurer does not have a duty to defend the insured for lawsuits alleging violations of federal electronic privacy laws stemming from user information gathered for targeted advertising purposes. In construing the policy exclusion, the court determined that the definition of “Internet access” under the exclusion is broader than merely providing an Internet connection and included the plaintiff’s online activities that “facilitated the ability of users to make use of the Internet.”
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/NetscapeVFederalInsuranceCo.pdf
Software Company That Provided Leads to Marketer That Sent Unsolicited Faxes Referencing Company’s Product Not Liable as “Sender” Under TCPA
A software company that gave advertising leads to a training company that sent unsolicited faxes advertising its own services and the software company’s product is not liable as a “sender” under the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act (TCPA) because there was no evidence that the faxes were sent on the behalf of the software company. Hughes v. FrontRange Solutions USA, Inc., No. D049869, 2007 Cal. Unpub. LEXIS 8344 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2007) (unpublished). The court granted the software company’s summary judgment motion, ruling that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the unsolicited faxes sent to the plaintiff by the training company were sent on behalf of the software company. The court found that even if the evidence showed that the software company offered leads to the training company and was aware that some of the leads resulted in faxed solicitations for the training company’s services, such facts do not establish that the faxes were sent on behalf of the software company.
Opinion http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D049869.DOC
Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act Section 2257 Reporting Requirements Held Unconstitutional
Section 2257 of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, which imposes certain recordkeeping requirements upon producers of images of “actual sexually explicit conduct” and those who manage such online content, is unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment. Connection Distributing Co. v. Keisler, No. 06-3822, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 24734 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2007). The court reversed the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs who sought an injunction barring the statute’s enforcement. The court ruled that the statute is not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest of Congress in preventing child abuse because the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and “sweeps in a lot of protected speech.”
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/ConnectionDistributingVKeisler.pdf
Predictive Oral Representations of Future Performance By Internet Marketing Company Are Unenforceable
Oral statements of future performance by an Internet marketing company that are “fundamentally predictive in nature” are not enforceable in the face of an unambiguous contract and cannot constitute actionable misrepresentation or fraud. Hallmark Inst. of Photography, Inc. v. CollegeBound Network, L.L.C., No. 07-30067, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79887 (D. Mass. Oct. 29, 2007). The court granted the marketer’s motion to dismiss the misrepresentation and breach of contract claims. The court concluded that the marketer’s oral statements concerning performance targets for an Internet advertising campaign were classic matters of “estimate or judgment” that could not form the basis of a misrepresentation claim. The court also found that since the essential terms of parties’ contract were unambiguous, the contract was deemed integrated and any oral statements were barred by the parol evidence rule.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/HallmarkInstituteVCollegeBoundNetwork.pdf
Arbitration Clause In Software License Agreement Not Applicable to Claims Alleging Both Software and Hardware Malfunction
An arbitration clause in a software license agreement that compels arbitration of claims relating to the referenced software is not applicable to claims alleging both software and hardware malfunctions. Tres Jeanee, Inc. v. Brolin Retail Systems Midwest, Inc., No. 3:07-cv-139, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78224 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 22, 2007). The court denied the software maker’s motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that even giving broad effect to the arbitration clause that compels the arbitration of claims relating to the software would not address the entirety of the plaintiff’s claims. The court also determined that should discovery reveal that the system problems giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims were limited to the software, the court could revisit the software maker’s motion to compel arbitration.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/TresJeaneeVBrolinRetailsSystems.pdf
Forum Selection Clause Applies to Telephone Transactions Where Purchaser Accessed Seller’s Web Site Privacy Policy
A purchaser who accessed a seller’s Web site to view the Privacy Policy in conjunction with a telephone transaction is bound by the forum selection clause contained in the Web site’s Terms of Use, which is explicitly connected to the Privacy Policy and governs the use of the site. Greer v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., No. 07-2543, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73961 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2007). The court granted the seller’s motion to dismiss for improper venue, ruling the purchaser was bound by the forum selection clause mandating a different forum. The court rejected the purchaser’s argument that the forum selection clause was not part of the Privacy Policy, finding unambiguous language that the purchaser was given notice that the Privacy Policy, which forms the basis of the purchaser’s claims, was part of a broader Terms of Use. The court also found that accessing the Web site constitutes an agreement to be bound by the Terms of Use, including the forum selection clause, an application of which would not be unreasonable against the purchaser.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/GreerV1-800-Flowers.com.pdf
Out-of-State Entity That Directed Web Site Hacking Activities to Tennessee Forum Subject to Long-Arm Jurisdiction
Out-of-state entities that purposefully sought to reverse engineer and allegedly misappropriate a Web-based interactive database application of a Tennessee company are subject to specific personal jurisdiction under Tennessee law. Premedics, Inc. v. Zoll Medical Corp., No. 06-0716, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75433 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 9, 2007). In applying the "effects test" articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that the defendants’ alleged hacking activities constituted intentionally tortious activity. The court found that in light of the "purposeful" activities of the defendants (i.e. use of an unauthorized Web account, creation of a competing Web-based system), the defendants were subject to the court's jurisdiction.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/PremedicsVZollMedical.pdf
Infringing Web Site Containing Pay-Per-Click Links Subject to Illinois Long-Arm Jurisdiction
A Web site that misappropriated an Illinois-based company’s trademark and generated revenue when Illinois residents clicked on the Web site’s pay-per-click advertising links promoting competing entities was subject to jurisdiction under the Illinois long-arm statute. Chicago Architecture Foundation v. Domain Magic, L.L.C., No. 07-764, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76226 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2007). The court denied the Web site’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, rejecting the argument that it maintained a passive, informational Web site that did not conduct business in Illinois. The court concluded that by misappropriating the Web site of an Illinois corporation for its own economic gain and receiving payments from its sponsored hyperlinks, the Web site had sufficient contacts with the forum state.
Opinion http://www.thelen.com/tlu/ChicagoArchitectureVDomainMagic.pdf
 |
Court Considers Political Blogs in Assessment of Pretrial Publicity Claim
Court Denies Google’s Motion to Dismiss American Airlines’s Keyword Advertising Lawsuit
Unlawfully Posting Social Security Numbers and Sending E-Threats Implicates Interstate Commerce Sufficient for Federal Court Jurisdiction
Court Issues Injunction Against Final Defendant in Grokster Case, Requiring Streamcast to Use The “Most Effective Means Available” to Reduce Infringement
Four-Year Federal "Catch-All" Statute of Limitations Applies to TCPA Claims
Federal Court Certifies Nationwide Class Action Against Target Concerning Website Inaccessibility for the Blind
Court Denies Web-Publisher Lulu.com’s Injunction Request Against New Web Video Venture Hulu.com
Willful Blindness as to Source Of Goods from Unauthorized Distributor No Defense to Counterfeit Software Infringement Claims
FTC Hosts “Ehavioral Advertising: Tracking, Targeting, and Technology” Conference
Internet Tax Moratorium Extended for Additional Seven Years
Circuit Court to Rehear Appeal Concerning Whether Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement Applies to Government Searches of Stored E-Mail
USPTO Rejects Most of Amazon.com’s “1-Click” Patent Claims During Reexamination
|
The monthly Technology Law Update is prepared in the New York office of
Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022