by Lee Gesmer | Aug 19, 2005 | Trademark
Trademarks. Google sells other companies’ trademarks as “keywords” on its Internet search engine. Whenever someone types in one of these keywords, such as GEICO, not only will Google’s search results show links to GEICO’s web site, but Google also will show advertising for other insurance companies under a banner called “Sponsored Links.” For example, when writing this blog, we searched “GEICO” on Google’s site and were shown paid links to two of GEICO’s competitors, USInsuranceonline.com and InsureMe.com.
Understandably, GEICO protested this practice of using its trademarks to direct consumers to its competitors. Given that 80% of Google’s revenues derive from this “AdWord” program (in turn causing Google to become a Wall Street darling, up three-fold in a year), Google refused to cease and desist, at which point GEICO sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
After a bench trial (translation: no jury) in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia in December 2004, the Judge ruled “from the bench” (translation: she delivered her decision orally in court) that GEICO had failed to establish that the use of its trademarks only to direct Google searchers to competitors created consumer confusion (the talisman of a trademark violation). However, she ruled that Google had violated the law when a competitor used GEICO’s name in the heading or the text of the ads. Judges can be very slow, and the Judge’s written opinion was released only last week, over eight months after the trial. For all practical purposes, however, the written decision adds little to what the Judge said in December. In time-honored fashion, both GEICO and Google declared her ruling a victory.
Unfortunately, while the trademark community (yes, there is such a thing) was hoping for clarification as to the reasoning behind the judge’s oral ruling, it may still be mostly in the dark after reading the opinion.
While the opinion excoriates the design and methodology underlying the survey evidence GEICO presented at trial to show confusion (survey evidence is standard stuff in trademark cases – its how a party shows that the public has been “confused,” or not) the Judge relies on the same flawed survey in finding a likelihood of confusion between GEICO’s marks and the Google Sponsored Links in which GEICO’s marks appear in the headings or text. What’s disappointing is the decision’s failure to provide a thoughtful legal analysis of the issue that can be a guide to other online advertisers.
The parties have 30 days to settle this dispute before the trial resumes to determine whether Google or its advertisers are liable for the infringement and the damages, if any, to which GEICO may be entitled. Google faces a big gamble in continuing with the trial – if the Court finds Google liable and awards damages to GEICO, the litigation floodgates will open as other trademark owners sue Google for infringement of their marks. This volume of litigation would put Google’s entire business plan at risk. Common sense suggests that the parties will settle this dispute, with each (need I say it?) claiming victory.
- Read the opinion here.
- An extensive legal analysis of the decision appears on Professor Eric Goldman’s blog, here.
by Lee Gesmer | Jul 21, 2005 | Procedure
Procedure. There are fads in the law, just like everywhere else. Apologies to Michael Lewis, but there can be no doubt that, in the odd and insular world inhabited by litigators, electronic discovery is the new, new thing, and almost everyone is scrambling to catch up. It is what Y2K was from 1997 to January 1, 2000, but unlike Y2K, it’s not going away anytime soon.
It easy to tell what’s hot in litigation: just watch publications like the National Law Journal and the American Lawyer and look for frequent articles on the “hot topics.” Google “electronic discovery” and you get 354,000 hits.
I’ll be writing more about electronic evidence and discovery, but for now it’s worth noting that if you want to learn about this subject one resource stands tall: Kroll Ontrack.
Kroll makes an effort to track and digest every case involving electronic discovery and computer forensics (look here to see this lengthy document, which can be sorted by topic or jurisdiction). Others, such as Lexis, are not far behind.
You can sign up for Kroll’s newsletter here.
And, if that’s not enough, you can order the monograph authored by two Kroll-employed attorneys, Electronic Discovery: What Every Lawyer Should Know. This 250 page book should make for a pleasant weekend of reading if you feel you really need to get up to speed on this topic.
I should note that the Foreword to this monograph was written by Ken Withers, a friend, attorney, former Bostonian, and for many years now Senior Judicial Education Attorney at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C.
by Lee Gesmer | Jul 21, 2005 | Copyright
Copyright. Sexy: Internet file sharing systems, Grokster, sampling, The Wind Done Gone, fair use, the legal standard for non literal infringement of computer source code.
Not sexy: copyright protection for parts numbering systems.
Yet, believe it or not, from time to time clients do ask whether parts numbering systems are protected.
Lewis Clayton at Paul Weiss has written an article (published in the July 8, 2005 issue of the National Law Journal), discussing several recent cases dealing with parts-numbering systems and the “merger doctrine” under U.S. copyright law.
by Lee Gesmer | Jul 14, 2005 | Copyright, DMCA/CDA
Copyright, Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Quick now, what’s a good legal strategy when you’re involved in a bitterly contested trade secret, copyright and trademark case? Sue the lawyers on the other side, accusing them of hacking, of course. At worst, you’ll distract them and knock them off their game; at best, you’ll force their disqualification, pushing them out of the case and making your opponent go to the expense and inconvenience (not to be underestimated) of hiring new counsel and and getting them up to speed on the case.
And, it doesn’t matter that your suit may be borderline or even frivolous. Every experienced lawyer knows that in the American legal system the risks of being sanctioned for bringing a frivolous suit are only slightly higher than finding a hundred dollar bill on a Times Square sidewalk during lunch hour.
So, what happened here? First, there is an underlying trademark and trade secret suit between the similarly named “Healthcare Advocates” and “Health Advocate” that is of no particular interest to anyone except the parties. One of the issues is whether Healthcare published its alleged trade secrets on the Internet in the late 1990’s. Health Advocate, the defendant, is represented by the Harding Earley law firm, the lawyers who are at the receiving end of the lawsuit in question.
Seeking to investigate Healthcare’s publications on its Internet site in the late ’90’s, Harding Earley used the Internet Archive’s “Wayback Machine” to research Healthcare’s old web sites. The Wayback Machine (described in detail by Wikipedia here) is a remarkable Internet resource. Recognizing that old web pages disappear and that the early days of the Internet would be lost if they weren’t preserved, in 1996 the Wayback Machine began archiving the Internet for posterity, and thus far it has archived a petabyte of data – (the equivalent of 500 billion pages of standard printed text. (It’s also worth mentioning that the Internet Archive includes live music. The “live music archive” section of the site contains 2,886 live performances by the Grateful Dead. If you can’t wait to get started, click here).
If you own a web site and for some reason you don’t want to be archived by the Wayback Machine, you can opt out. The Wayback Machine permits website administrators to use the voluntary SRE (Standard for Robot Exclusion) to identify files or directories that cannot be “crawled” and indexed. Exclusion is accomplished by inserting a file called robots.txt on a web server. According to Internet.org this not only prospectively excludes a site from being crawled, but will “exclude any historical pages from the Wayback Machine.”
To return to our story, the case against Health Advocate was filed in 2003. Healthcare had been operating a website since 1998. In early July 2003, the robots.txt instructions were inserted by Healthcare. The next day (coincidence?) Harding Earley used the Wayback Machine to access Healthcare’s website material. Harding Earley hit the Healthcare site (using the Wayback Machine) very aggresively, and the robots.txt instruction failed to completely bar Harding Earley from accessing this material, nor did it warn the lawyers that the Healthcare material was “off limits.” The Harding Earley lawyers admit, however, that they had to “hit” the Healthcare URL repeatedly in order to gain access to it.
Fast forward two years, leaving out unimportant details. In early July 2005, based on the conduct described above, Healthcare filed suit against Harding Earley in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey.
Most of Healthcare’s claims against the lawyers are hardly worth discussing (Trespass? Intrusion Upon Seclusion? Yeah, right…).
The only claim that might have merit is that Harding Earley violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Section 1201(a) of the DMCA states: “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [copyright] work protected under this title.” Healthcare claims that robots.txt is a technological measure that controls access to the archived copies of its web site, and that the Harding Earley law firm circumvented that measure.
There are several problems with this argument. First, it’s not clear that Harding Earley took any affirmative steps to “circumvent” robots.txt, or that the law firm was even aware that Healthcare had attempted to restrict access to the material. In other words, Harding Earley did not use some form of de-encryption technology (common to DMCA claims). Did creating an automated script to hit the site repeatedly constitute circumvention under the DMCA?
Second, the DMCA defines a technological measure as one that “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner . . . if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of the copyright owner under this title.” It’s not certain that the Standard for Robot Exclusion (implemented by robots.txt), a voluntary protocol, meets the DMCA’s definition of a technological measure. Moreover, the fact that the law firm got access simply by accessing the URL may suggest that the technological measure was not “effective.”
Third, since the archived website was accessed in connection with discovery in pending litigation, there may be no claim for copyright infringement. Absent the potential for copyright infringement, at least one case decided under the DMCA (Chamberlain v. Skylink) suggests that mere access to protected content may be insufficient to trigger the DMCA. As the Court noted in that case, the DMCA provides an additional avenue of protection for copyrightable content, but does not create a new property right.
Fourth, the lawyers can argue that it is significant that the web site content in question was fully and publicly accessible for five years. They may be able to argue that the the content was effectively licensed to the public or placed in the public domain when it was originally put on the web site, undermining the argument that the defendant’s access to it was in some way unauthorized.
Fifth, the plaintiff’s DMCA claim is clearly not what was contemplated by the law. The DMCA has traditionally (to the extent that term can be used for a statute of relatively recent vintage) been used to protected encrypted content, not external locks used to limit access to that content. Aggresive use of the DMCA in unanticipated ways is nothing new, but thus far has failed. Plaintiffs have unsuccessfully attempted to use the DMCA to prevent the sale of aftermarket printer cartridges and software codes embodied in garage door openers. We predict a similar conclusion is the likely outcome in this case.
Lastly, it’s worth noting that plaintiff’s theory, if successful, would discourage archivists like the Internet Archive from using voluntary measures like robots.txt upon pain of creating a DMCA violation if the measure fails, and therefore would open a host of copyright issues for the Archive that could endanger its existence.
Thanks to Joseph Laferrera, who has written a number of insightful articles on the DMCA (Court Limits Reach of DMCA – The Chamberlain Case and Court Preserves Aftermarket Competition Under the DMCA – The Lexmark Case), for his assistance in preparing this piece.
For some additional interesting commentary on this case by Rebecca Bolin, see LawMeme, here.
by Lee Gesmer | Jul 12, 2005 | Technology
Technology. Tim Berners-Lee is widely recognized as the inventor of the World Wide Web. Today, he is the Director of the World Wide Web Consortium, Senior Researcher at MIT‘s CSAIL, and Professor of Computer Science at Southampton ECS.
Mr. Berners-Lee’s current project is the development of a Semantic Web, a dramatic enhancement of the current web which is described in detail here.
This Spring (2005) my partner Andrew Updegrove interviewed Mr. Berners-Lee regarding the Semantic Web.
