Laws of .com

Volume VII, Issue 7: April 09, 2009

TomTom to Pay Microsoft to End Patent Fight

Google Faces Trade-Mark Trial Over Advertising Program

Google Wins Domain Name Dispute

First Twitter Libel Suit Filed in Los Angeles

Apple Takes Decision of IP Australia to Federal Court

Court Orders Identification of Anonymous Web Posters

TomTom to Pay Microsoft to End Patent Fight

Microsoft recently settled a patent dispute with TomTom NV for an undisclosed amount regarding car navigation technology. The lawsuit, which was filed by Microsoft in the U.S. District Court in Washington and with the International Trade Commission in February, claimed that TomTom’s car navigation system infringed on patented technology that allows vehicle computer systems to run more than one application at a time, provide more natural driving directions, and access the Internet, among other functions. Under the terms of the 5 year settlement, TomTom will pay Microsoft for the use of 8 patents. In addition, TomTom must remove some functions from its products within 2 years, including the functionality related to naming, organizing and storing file data.

For additional information, visit:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_12030209

Back to Headlines

Google Faces Trade-Mark Trial Over Advertising Program

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has vacated a lower court’s ruling dismissing an action by Rescuecom Corp. against Google for trade-mark infringement, false designation of origin, and dilution under the Lanham Act. The lower court’s ruling concerned Google’s use of its AdWords program and Keyword Suggestion Tool.

Google’s AdWords program allows advertisers to purchase terms or keywords, which could include the trade-marks of competitors. When entered as a search term, the terms or keywords trigger the appearance of the advertiser’s ad and a link to the advertiser’s website on the search page. The Keyword Suggestion Tool is a program that recommends terms or keywords for advertisers to purchase, which could include trade-marked terms or keywords.

Rescuecom, a computer service franchising company, alleged in the lower court that Google’s display of sponsored links of competing brands in response to a search for Rescuecom’s brand created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The Court of Appeals held that this question should be settled in a trial. The Court of Appeals did not rule on the merits of the case, but held that the lower court misapplied a previous ruling in the case of 1-800 Contacts v. WhenU. The Court of Appeals also held that the inclusion of a trade-mark in an internal computer directory could constitute an actionable trade-mark use and that Google’s recommendation and sale of Rescuecom’s mark to its advertising customers are not internal uses.

For additional information, visit:
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/rescuecom_v_google/06-4881-cv.pdf

Back to Headlines

Google Wins Domain Name Dispute

Google Inc. has emerged victorious in a recent WIPO arbitration and mediation committee decision regarding the domain names “googlehrd.com” and “mygooglemoney.com”. Google argued that these domain names, registered by two India-based companies, Ascio Technologies and Net Jobs, constituted an illegal use of Google’s trade name. Christian Schalk, the sole WIPO panelist assigned to decide both cases, agreed and held that the two Indian companies registered these names in “bad faith” in order to confuse web users. The names were ordered transferred to Google.

For additional information, visit:
http://tinyurl.com/Gogglewins

For a copy of the gogglehrd.com decision, visit:
http:// arbiter. wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0030.html

For a copy of the mygogglemoney.com decision, visit:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0033.html

Back to Headlines

First Twitter Libel Suit Filed in Los Angeles

In what is believed to be the first lawsuit filed for statements made on Twitter, singer and actress Courtney Love has been sued in Los Angeles Superior Court by her former fashion designer, Dawn Simorangkir. The claim relates to “tweets” posted by Love on Twitter accusing Simorangkir of being a “nasty, lying, hosebag thief”, having “a history of dealing cocaine” and being guilty of “assault and burglary”, among other things. Simorangkir is seeking punitive damages on the basis that the comments have destroyed her reputation and business. Simorangkir claims that Love’s attack was sparked when Simorangkir stopped working for her after Love failed to pay her bill. Apparently, Love is well known for sounding off online, and had also posted similar comments on a fashion site where Simorangkir sells her clothes.

Twitter is a free social networking service that enables its users to send text-based posts of up to 140 bytes in length (called “tweets”) which are displayed on the user’s profile page and delivered to other users who have subscribed to them. Users can send and receive tweets via the Twitter website, short message service (SMS) or applications such as Tweetie, Twitterrific, Twitterfon, TweetDeck and feedalizr.

For additional information, visit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/loves-online-spat-sparks-first-twitter-libel-suit-1656621.html

Back to Headlines

Apple Takes Decision of IP Australia to Federal Court

California-based Apple Computer Inc. has recently launched an action in the Federal Court of Australia challenging a decision of IP Australia, Australia’s government organization that administers intellectual property rights with regards to the trademark MacPro. Approximately two years ago, Apple applied to register the trademark, but its application was successfully challenged by MacPro Computers (Aust.) Pty Ltd, a Melbourne-based computer consulting company operating since 1983. The reasons behind IP Australia’s decision were not made public, and if Apple’s appeal to the Federal Court is unsuccessful, MacPro Computers may have the opportunity to register MacPro as its trademark.

For additional information, visit:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25250433-15306,00.html

Back to Headlines

Court Orders Identification of Anonymous Web Posters

Justice Kershman of the Ontario Superior Court has ordered a pair of website owners to disclose identifying information about a number of individuals who posted anonymous comments on the website called “Free Dominion” and who now stand accused of defamation by a well known human rights lawyer.

Specifically, Justice Kershman ordered that the website produce email addresses and all personal information about the users, including their IP addresses. Justice Kershman dismissed the website’s argument that there is an expectation of anonymity for users of the Internet using virtual message boards.

This case emphasizes that judges will be increasingly called upon to weigh privacy rights against the rights of those alleging that they have been defamed. The website owners plan to appeal this decision.

For additional information, visit:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/03/25/tech-090325-anonymous-posters.html?ref=rss
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1501128

Back to Headlines