Links & Law - Information about legal aspects of search engines, linking and framing

Hyperlink & Search Engine Law News  Decisions & Court Documents Worldwide Legal Resources (Hyperlink & Search Engine Law Articles) Linking Law Cases Search Engine Law Publications by Dr. Stephan Ott Technical    Background

Update 26: January 1, 2005

1. ACS sues Google over Scholar

The American Chemical Society (ACS) filed a complaint on Dec. 9 against Google Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint contends that Google's use of the trademark "Scholar" for its Google Scholar literature-search engine constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition. Google has launched the new Google Scholar search service in November 2004, providing the ability to search for scholarly literature located across the Web. ACI has its own six year old research tool designed for academic scientists, called SciFinder Scholar. About 1,000 colleges and universities have bought the service, which provides access to all of CAS's databases, including information on journal and patent references, substance information, regulated chemicals, chemical reactions, and chemical supplier information. So is it all about Google Scholar is free, SciFinder is paid? ACS can't sue Google for making information free, but they can sue for trademark infringement...

 

2. Google Scores Victory in AdWords Case against Geico

Google Inc. won a significant legal victory against Geico when a federal judge ruled that the search engine's advertising policy does not violate trademark laws. The ruling is the first in American courts to address whether Google can sell ads linked to trademarked search terms. According to the judge, "as a matter of law it is not trademark infringement to use trademarks as keywords to trigger advertising,"  This outcome had not been expected as in late August, the judge had denied Google and Overture's motion to dismiss six charges brought by Geico and on Nov. 19 had denied Google's motion for summary judgment. Overture (Yahoo!) had settled out of court with insurance company Geico earlier in December 2004. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

The judge has yet to rule on another claim by Geico, that Google is liable for trademark infringement when it lets marketers buy ads that use trademarked names in the ad copy. But this should pose no threat to Google, as executives have said Google removes such ads when trademark holders complain.

Also see: MEMORANDUM OF AMICUS CURIAE PUBLIC CITIZEN

In the other important AdWord lawsuit in the USA, I have added some links to legal documents

  • American Blind and Wallpaper Factory v. Google

    • Complaint (PDF - January 27, 2004)

  • Google v. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory

    • Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of non-infringement (PDF - November 26, 2003)

    • Letter to Google regarding AdWords trademark complaints (PDF - July 23, 2003)

    • Letter to Google's Trademark Counsel (PDF - July 11, 2003)

 

3. Norwegian Supreme Court will rule on the liabilty for links to illegal MP3-Files - Napster.no

In 2001 the website “napster.no” featured hypertext links to illegal mp3-files that were published on other Internet pages. From the front page the users could access another page called “Add an mp3-file” and write in the name of the artist, the title of the song and the address (URL) of where the files could be found. After legal threats by the IFPI, the operator (Bruvik) shut down his pages as he had been informed that the pages could be violating Norwegian copyright law. So on November 20th 2001 he deleted all links to illegal mp3-files. TONO (Norway's Performing Rights Society) and NCB (Nordic Copyright Bureau), on behalf of the copyright owners and the record companies EMI Norsk AS, BMG Norway AS, Sony Music Entertainment Norway AS and Universal Music AS, on behalf of the artists and the producers, thereafter initiated legal actions by filing a complaint within the court of conciliation. The claim set forth was for NOK 500,000 as compensation for breach of the Norwegian Copyright Act (1961), Section 55.

The district court of Sør-Gudbrandsdal delivered a judgement on January 22nd, 2003 which stated: "Napster Frank Allan Bruvik represented by Frank Allan Bruvik is hereby sentenced to pay the plaintiffs a lump sum of damages set to NOK 100,000 – one hundred thousand Norwegian Crowners – with the additional interest rate of 12% per year until payment is done, cf. the Interest Rate Act (1978), Section 3, subsection two."

The Court of Appeal came to a different conclusion than the district court, which reads as follows: "[T]he actions committed by Bruvik were not an action relevant to copyright as such. He himself did not use the files, and he did not store or copy the files. His actions [deeplinking] consisted merely of reference to sites where the works already were made accessible. References of this kind cannot be regarded, in the opinion of the Court, as a public performance. The actions of Bruviks must be compared to those of a bulletin board containing addresses to uploaded music works. The linking itself did not involve a performance."

The case is before the Norwegian Supreme Court in January 2005.

Thanks to Magnus Stray Vyrje (Attorney at law in Oslo), who represents the defendant "napster.no", I can provide an English translation of the Court of Appeal decision.

 

New in Legal Resources:

  • Links from Infringing URL to Gripe Sites Implicate Free Speech and Can't Be Enjoined, Electronic Commerce & Law Report 2004, 748-749 (about the Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp. verdict)

  • Search Engine's Sale of Mark as Trigger For Banner Ad is Actionable Trademark Use, Electronic Commerce & Law Report 2004, 772

  • Google, Trademark Owner Debate Whether Use of Mark to Trigger Ad Is Commercial Use, Electronic Commerce & Law Report 2004, 791-792

  • Sale of AdWords to Rivals Alleged To Constitute Commercial "Use of Mark", Electronic Commerce & Law Report 2004, 808

 

New in Decisions:

  • VG Münster, Decision of November 5, 2004, Az 1 L 1118/04

    Liability

 

  • The Circuit of Eidsivating, Decision of March 3, 2004, Napster.no, Unofficial English translation

    Liability 

    "[T]he actions committed by Bruvik were not an action relevant to copyright as such. He himself did not use the files, and he did not store or copy the files. His actions [deeplinking] consisted merely of reference to sites where the works already were made accessible. References of this kind cannot be regarded, in the opinion of the Court, as a public performance. The actions of Bruviks must be compared to those of a bulletin board containing addresses to uploaded music works. The linking itself did not involve a performance."

 

In the last two years the German Federal Court of Justice issued two very important verdicts on the legality of hyperlinking. In the "Paperboy" decision the court held that an online service which offers links to articles in a protected database is not in violation of copyright and competition law (also see this Update). In the "Schöner Wetten" decision the court ruled on the liability for linking to illegal gambling sites (also see Update 18). Thanks to Magnus Stray Vyrje (Attorney at law in Oslo), who represents the defendant "napster.no"  in the upcoming Supreme Court case on the liabilty for linking to illegal music files, I can provide a translation of these verdicts in Norwegian.

 

  • BGH (Link to the Norwegian Translation), Decision of April 1, 2004, I ZR 317/01, MMR 2004, 529-532

    Liability 

    Zur Frage eines Wettbewerbsverstoßes durch ein Glücksspielunternehmen,
    das im Besitz einer Erlaubnis eines anderen EU-Mitgliedstaates ist und über das Internet Glücksspiele auch für inländische Teilnehmer bewirbt und veranstaltet. Zur Störerhaftung eines Presseunternehmens, das in einem solchen Fall neben einem im Rahmen seines Internetauftritts veröffentlichten redaktionellen Artikel die als Hyperlink ausgestaltete Internetadresse des Glücksspielunternehmens angibt.

 

  • BGH (Link to the Norwegian Translation), Decision of July 17, 2003 - I ZR 259/00, MMR 2003, 719 ff.

Copyright Law, Competition Law

Das Setzen von Hyperlinks greift nicht in das Vervielfältigungsrecht des Urhebers ein. Der Linksetzende haftet auch nicht als Störer dafür, dass er Nutzern ermöglicht, unmittelbar den Volltext abzurufen und zu vervielfältigen. Das Setzen eines Links greif auch nicht in das Recht der öffentlichen Zugänglichmachung ein. Wer einen Hyperlink auf eine vom Berechtigten öffentlich zugänglich gemachte Webseite mit einem urheberrechtlich geschützten Werk setzt, begeht damit keine urheberrechtliche Nutzungshandlung, sondern verweist lediglich auf das Werk in einer Weise, die Nutzern den bereits eröffneten Zugang erleichtert.

Ein Linkprovider handelt nicht wettbewerbswidrig im Sinne des § 1 UWG, wenn sein Suchdienst Nutzern durch Hyperlinks ermöglicht, unmittelbar auf Artikel zuzugreifen, die im Rahmen anderer Internetauftritte öffentlich zugänglich sind.

Der Betreiber der verlinkten Webseite  kann nicht verlangen, daß nur der umständliche Weg über die Startseiten seines Internetauftritts gegangen wird und die Möglichkeiten der Hyperlinktechnik ungenutzt bleibt.

Ohne die Inanspruchnahme von Suchdiensten und deren Einsatz von Hyperlinks (gerade in der Form von Deep-Links) wäre die sinnvolle Nutzung der unübersehbaren Informationsfülle im World Wide Web praktisch ausgeschlossen. Ein Berechtigter, der die Vorteile des World Wide Web, die gerade auch auf der Hyperlinktechnik beruhen, für seine Angebote in Anspruch nimmt, kann es deshalb nicht als unlautere Behinderung beanstanden, wenn andere die Hyperlinktechnik zur Erschließung seines eigenen Webangebots für die Öffentlichkeit nutzen. Die Tätigkeit von Suchdiensten und deren Einsatz von Hyperlinks ist wettbewerbsrechtlich zumindest dann grundsätzlich hinzunehmen, wenn diese lediglich den Abruf vom Berechtigten öffentlich zugänglich gemachter Informationsangebote ohne Umgehung technischer Schutzmaßnahmen für Nutzer erleichtern.

 

Newsarchive

The Links & Law website is updated regularily, so  check back for updated information and resources about search engine and linking issues.

You are currently in the archive with older news. A complete list of the updates can be found here!
 

Latest News - Update 71

Legal trouble for YouTube in Germany

Germany: Employer may google job applicant

EU: Consultation on the E-Commerce-Directive

WIPO Paper on tradmarks and the internet

The ECJ and the AdWords Cases

 

 

Masthead/Curriculum Vitae
Copyright © 2002-2008 Dr. Stephan Ott 

All Rights Reserved.

 

Google