<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Good discussion both on a personal (user) level and
on a policy level. Thanks.<br>
<br>
De: I disagree with your categorization. I think of it this way...<br>
a) unable in the sense of "unaware". <br>
b) no matter how smart you are, if you do not have the information, do
not even realize you NEED the information, you are back to a)... you do
not have the tools to protect yourself.<br>
<br>
Part of this is because we are lazy. Do we read the privacy clauses and
fine print, or do we just click "I accept"? But part of this is
thinking we can trust Google, Facebook or other companies, because we
think that our objectives and theirs are compatible--as some of us
think they should be. Good business is that which benefits all parties.
I think that good policy is not only transparent, but, in these cases <b>obvious.
</b>Should a user have to search the fine print to find the information
they want?<br>
gp<br>
</font><br>
Deirdre Williams wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:fa468ac01001050617j70295658udb352db45a2dfa41@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">The thing that concerns me most about this debate is the
perception, apparently generally accepted, that the user is a) unable
to protect him/her self and b) stupid.
<div>I remember being greeted with surprise and horror when I
suggested "playing games with google" - deliberately inserting words
into emails to see what the response would be.</div>
<div>We can all say no, and if we are "disempowered" to the point
where this is no longer possible then the answer surely lies in
educating people, rather than regulating google.</div>
<div>Deirdre<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/1/5 Jean-Louis FULLSACK <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jlfullsack@orange.fr">jlfullsack@orange.fr</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
Dear Ian and all<br>
<br>
The article below (from IBLS News Portal) may be interesting for some
of you<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Jean-Louis Fullsack<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(255, 0, 0); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;">>
Message du 05/01/10 01:01<br>
> De : "Ian Peter" <br>
> A : <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> Copie à : <br>
> Objet : Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net
neutrality
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> One thing to realise in this debate is that there is an inherent
potential<br>
> conflict of interest involved when a search provider is also an
advertising<br>
> and content provider. Particularly as internet names become more
irrelevant<br>
> and search continues to expand as the major discovery mechanism.<br>
> <br>
> And when the worlds biggest search provider is also the biggest
content<br>
> owner and biggest advertising revenue source on line, there is a
recipe for<br>
> problems and potential monopolistic behaviour.<br>
> <br>
> And here's another bit for the puzzle! I have just been the victim
of an<br>
> internet fraud - I realised in time (I hope!) that I was the
subject of a<br>
> scam, but to escape it I had to cancel a credit card.<br>
> <br>
> Where Google comes in here is that the search result that led me
to the<br>
> fraudulent site was a number one hit on Google (I was looking for a<br>
> particular piece of Mac software and was drawn to a file sharing
site that<br>
> wanted a small fee - but as I found out later has the habit of
using credit<br>
> card numbers obtained from many similar sites for all sorts of
other<br>
> charges). Quite sophisticated sites.<br>
> <br>
> I cant blame a search algorithm for directing me to a site which
happens to<br>
> be fraudulent. But I am not going to argue for entirely neutral
algorithms<br>
> either - in time and as we become more mature as regards
cybercrime, search<br>
> algorithms should be rejecting fraudulent sites where possible
(yes this is<br>
> difficult I know).<br>
> <br>
> So we probably don't want neutral search entirely. The Halal
search engine<br>
> discussion here a few months ago raised similar issues. But what I
do want<br>
> is clear disclosure and some clear overall policies regarding
search<br>
> behaviour.<br>
> <br>
> This is a critical issue, and especially for governance. It isnt
going away<br>
> and there is no logical home for addressing these issues
holistically at<br>
> present.<br>
> <br>
> Ian Peter<br>
</div>
</div>
<table style="width: 100%;" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 3.75pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; color: rgb(57, 68, 82); font-size: 13.5pt;">INTERNET
LAW - The Initial Interest Confusion Theory: The Beginning Of Liability
For Search Engine Companies </span></strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;">
<table style="width: 100%;" border="0" cellpadding="0"
width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0.75pt; background-color: transparent; width: 50%;"
width="50%">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><em><span
style="color: rgb(136, 146, 154); font-size: 7.5pt;">Martha L. Arias,
Martha L. Arias</span></em><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;"></span></p>
</td>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0.75pt; background-color: transparent; width: 50%;"
width="50%">
<p
style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: right; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal" align="right"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:?subject=INTERNET%20LAW%20-%20The%20Initial%20Interest%20Confusion%20Theory:%20The%20Beginning%20Of%20%20Liability%20For%20Search%20Engine%20Companies%3cp%3e%3cp%3e&Body=http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=articles%26id%3dE53B27F8-82F9-4A02-B57B-1B47B7ADBC2A"
target="_blank"><span
style="color: rgb(72, 81, 89); font-size: 8.5pt; text-decoration: none;"></span></a><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;"></span></p>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">Search engine and
internet advertisers have found technological systems to provide
‘better location’ and visibility for their patrons’ advertisements
(ads). One of these inventions is Meta tags. In simple terms, Meta tags
are HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) codes incorporated to an
advertisement or webpage that depict that website content and will
increase visibility for those searching the web. There are two types of
Meta tags, ‘description’ and ‘keyword’ Meta tags. The main objective in
using description Meta tags is to describe the website content. At
least at its inception, keyword Meta tags intended to use common words
or sentences found in a specific website to trigger visibility of the
Ads. No doubt Meta tags are an excellent tool for search engine patrons
and for Internet surfers. It is an excellent marketing strategy for
search engine patrons and time-efficiency instrument for Internet
users. </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">Yet, search engine
companies turned intense in helping their patrons. They embarked on the
sensitive journey of using trademarked terms in Meta tags. But, is this
use legal? May search engines be liable for the use of trademarked
terms in keyword Meta tags? May this violate the trademark laws and
unfair competition rules? </span><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">The answer to these
and other related questions follow. </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;"
valign="top">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">One of the leading
United States (U.S.) cases on the issue of liability for the use of
trademarked terms is Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast
Entertainment (Brookfield). This case commenced in a District Court of
California in 1998 and concluded with a remarkable decision that marked
the beginning of a new liability era for those using trademarked words
in their advertisements. Brookfield held that the defendant company was
liable to the plaintiff company, under the Trademark Infringement and
Unfair Competition Laws of the U.S. Lanham Act (15 U.S. §§1114 and
1125(a), for the defendant’s use of plaintiff’s trademarked term in
defendant’s Meta tags in Defendant’s websites, even if no actual damage
existed. This case introduced the Initial Interest Confusion liability
theory that is still applicable in the U.S. Courts. </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">Brookfield was
later complemented by Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape
Communications (Playboy). In Playboy liability was directed asserted on
a search engine company sued for infringement of the same provisions of
the U.S. Lanham Act. </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;"
valign="top">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;"></span></p>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;"
valign="top">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">What are the facts
of Brookfield case?</span></strong><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;"></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;"
valign="top">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">Brookfield
Communications, Inc. is a company that collects and distributes
information about the entertainment industry. In its initial stages,
Brookfield created and offered software for major Hollywood film
studios only. Later in 1993, they broadened their services and
introduced a software database with news and information about the
entertainment industry intended for a general or less specialized
audience. This database was called “MovieBuff.” </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">West Coast
Entertainment is a large video rental store with more than 500 stores
nation- wide. In 1991, West Coast Entertainment got a Federal
registration of the service mark “Movie Buff’s Movie Store.” Records
show that this service mark was related to the sell and rental of video
cassettes and video game cartridges. In February 1996, West Coast
Entertainment registered a domain name called “moviebuff.com.” </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">In August 1996,
Brookfield tried to register a domain name called MovieBuff.com to no
avail because this domain name had been registered by West Coast
Entertainment Company. </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">In August 1997,
Brookfield applied for the Federal registration of the mark “movieBuff”
that would identify Brookfield’s products and services. Brookfield
trademark application described its products as “computer software
providing data and information in the field of the motion picture and
television industries.” This Federal trademark was issued in September
1998. Likewise, Brookfield had obtained a California state trademark
registration of the mark “movieBuff” in 1994 that covered “computer
software.” </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">In October 1998,
Brookfield knew that West Coast Entertainment Company would launch an
entertainment industry database in their already registered website,
“movieBuff.com” with similar information to that offered by
Brookfield’s through its “MovieBuff” software and displayed in their
website “Brookfieldcomm.com and “moviebuffonline.com.” </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">Brookfield then
requested West Coast Entertainment Company to desist this endeavor
because it would violate Brookfield’s trademark rights. West Coast
Entertainment Company paid no attention to this request and launched
its entertainment database in its “movieBuff.com website. </span><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">Then, this lawsuit
commenced. </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;"
valign="top">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;"></span></p>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;"
valign="top">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">What was the legal
issue in this case?</span></strong><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;"></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;"
valign="top">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">There were several
legal issues in this case, some of them procedural issues that will not
be addressed in this summary. </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">First, the Court
considered whether there was an infringement of trademark claim under
section 32 of the Lanham Act (U.S. Trademark law); Second, whether
there was an unfair competition claim under section 43 of the same Act.
These two issues were solved after worthy and lengthy intellectual
property considerations that will be reviewed in other summary,
especially that related to the use of trademarked terms in domain
names. </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">Third, and most
important for us in this discussion, the Court considered whether West
Coast Entertainment Company (defendant) was liable for the use of the
trademarked term “movieBuff” in the Meta tags in its website “<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://westcoastvideo.com" target="_blank">westcoastvideo.com</a>”
or any other website different than “movieBuff.com.” The Court decision
was in the affirmative. The Court held that due to the Initial Interest
Confusion theory, West Coast Entertainment Company was liable to
Brookfield for the use of its trademarked term in the Meta tags of
defendant’s websites other than “movieBueff.com.” </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;"
valign="top">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;"></span></p>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;"
valign="top">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">What is the Initial
Interest Confusion Theory and is it Actionable under the U.S. Lanham
Act?</span></strong><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;"></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="border: medium none rgb(240, 240, 240); padding: 0cm; background-color: transparent;"
valign="top">
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">Using the facts of
this case, the Court appropriately defined this theory as follows: </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">“Web surfers
looking for ‘Brookfield’s’ ‘MovieBuff’ products who are taken by a
search engine to ‘<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://westcoastvideo.com" target="_blank">westcoastvideo.com</a>’
will find a database similar enough to ‘MovieBuff’ such that a sizeable
number of consumers who were originally looking for Brookfield’s
products will simply decide to utilize West Coast’s offering instead.
Although there is no source confusion in the sense that consumers know
they are patronizing West Coast rather than Brookfield, there is
nevertheless initial interest confusion in the sense that, by using ‘<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://moviebuff.com" target="_blank">moviebuff.com</a>’
or ‘moviebuff’ to divert people looking for ‘MovieBuff’ to its web
site, West Coast improperly benefits from the goodwill that Brookfield
developed in its mark.” </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">The wisdom of this
theory may be simply explained as follows; a consumer looking for a
specific product uses a search engine and types the name of that
product. Suddenly, that consumer is taken to the website of a company
that may not be the owner of this product’s trademarked term but that
sells similar products. Even though, this consumer may be clearly aware
that he is using a different website than the initial website he
intended, he may decide to stay in this website since it offers a
similar product of the one he was looking for. It is clear that the
website using a trademarked in its Meta tag is benefiting from the
goodwill of this trademarked term to attract consumers to its site. </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: normal;"
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color: rgb(75, 91, 104); font-size: 8.5pt;">But, where is the
confusion and violation of the Lanham Act? The Court stressed that a
consumer re-directed to a website different than the one initially
intended may not be confused as to what website he is visiting. Yet,
the fact that his initial interest for a company or website was
diverted to another is a type of confusion against which the Lanham Act
protects. This Court citing to Mobile Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum
Corp. said: “to capture initial consumer attention, even though no
actual sale is finally completed as a result of the confusion, may be
still an infringement.” Thus, one of the principal elements of
infringement under the Lanham Act, be it confusion, is found when a
company uses a trademarked term in its Meta tags. </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>