|
|
 2  3 November 2002
Features:
Domain Names -
In Robbie Williams v Howard Taylor, a WIPO dispute involving robbiewilliams.info, the domain name was transferred, as fan site argument failed.
Click Wrap Agreements -
PayPal’s User Agreement and arbitration clause were substantively unconscionable under California Law and arbitration could not be compelled.
Click Wrap Agreements -
In Christopher Specht and others v Netscape Communications Corporation and America Online, Inc US Court of Appeals for 2nd Circuit held Plaintiffs were not bound by the arbitration clause.
Trade Marks -
Arsenal Football Club plc v Mathew Read. ECJ view that under Article 5(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive (and section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act), a trade mark owner is entitled to prevent only use of a sign which affects the trade mark’s function of guaranteeing to consumers the origin of the goods to the trade mark.
Domain Name -
In Hanna-Barbera Productions Inc v Graeme Hay, a Nominet Appeal Panel decided a tribute website is prima facie an Abusive Registration, and without Prejudice correspondence would be admissible evidence.
Content Liability -
In Associations of German Video and Media Retailers v eBay, Landgericht Potsdam (German regional Court), held that under TDG s8 a telecommunication service provider is not obliged to control information transmitted or hosted by it nor to investigate for circumstances indicating illegal activity.
Premium Rate Regulation -
ICSTIS takes action under derogations from E-commerce Directive and fined Greenock £75,000 and Premium Call £50,000 and barred access to both services for two years.
Competition -
Network Multimedia Television Limited v Jobserve before the Court of Appeal is the first case where interim relief has been granted and sustained under the Competition Act 1998. The case was settled by a Tomlin Order which effectively prevents Jobserve from implementing its policy in the terms of the interim injunction for so long as it remains in a dominant position.
Patents -
In British Telecommunications Plc v Prodigy Communications Corporation, the US District Court held that no jury could have found that Prodigy infringed the Patent, whether directly or contributorily, either as part of the Internet or on its web server viewed separately to the Internet
|
|
|
