For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Monday, 16 June 2008

Confused Kat in search of AdWord, Keyword help

Hoping to do some writing on the subject, IPKat team member Jeremy has been pondering the legal position of trade mark owners, internet traders, internet service providers and name purchasers in a situation where a purchaser buys, for use as an adword or keyword, a term that is registered by another person as a trade mark. It seems to him that there are quite a few decisions popping up these days from courts around Europe and there is no consistency in them in terms of application of legal principles to the facts. This has now led to the making of a reference to the European Court of Justice on a number of topical questions.

Jeremy thinks it would be interesting to chart national case law in Europe so far and wonders if his readers can tell him if anyone has already compiled a country-by-country scoreboard. If no-one has yet done this, Jeremy will be quite happy to have a go at this himself, since it's a useful research resource that he'd be willing to share with his colleagues. So, if you can point him in the direction of this data, he'd be hugely grateful. If not, please email him -- using the term Key as your email subject title-- and let him know of cases in your jurisdiction.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Average teenager's iPod has 800 illegal music tracks

Story from The Times.

It hints at price discrimination; ie, the yoofs are paying for the music what they can afford; viz, nothing. Further, it doesn't mention anything about exclusive possession: when a yoof downloads a tune it doesn't prevent anyone else from making a copy of the tune and paying for it (ie is it really theft?).

Someone posted a note on the IPKat blog about the lack of economic analysis with respect to IP. Whole heartedly agree with him/her. Yoofs downloading and not paying for the tunes has the same effect as playing music on the radio. It increases awareness of a particular tune that otherwise would be lost to oblivion. The yoofs are doing the music biz a big favour. (I suspect that the music biz knows this but that's for another post).

Anonymous said...

Except, of course, that the music companies get paid when their music is paid on the radio. The article would appear to be a good reason for ipods to be adapted to only play copy protected tracks (but of couse the EU Commission considers this anti-competetive).

Anonymous said...

"Except, of course, that the music companies get paid when their music is [played] on the radio."

Except, the real transfer is in the other direction, see payola.

(Oh, do keep up 007).

Paul Jakma said...

Anonymous,

And digital copy-protection is technically a myth. It doesn't stop copying, the net result is just that companies can no legally offer competiting, compatible products.

It is unclear exactly how music artists will make their money in the future. What is however clear, to me, is that there isn't the money anymore to support a large, middle-man sector. (That there was in the past seems, to me, to have been an anomoly, of the 70s to 90s - the height of the physical, analogue recording publishing industry).

After 10 years of the DMCA in the USA, it is also clear to some that attempting to preserve the analogue publishing business model through legislatively mandated technological measures also is doomed to failure. The technologists said from the beginning that copy-protection wouldn't work - management at some large media companies are starting to agree (see various moves in last year to sell DRM-free music on Apple and Amazon online stores).

If you accept this interpretation of events, it should be clear that it would be a *bad* idea to introduce further legislation mandating copy-protection. Perhaps what's needed is enough time to allow the industry to figure out a viable, new business model...

Anonymous said...

Hi Paul

"And digital copy-protection is technically a myth. It doesn't stop copying, the net result is just that companies can no legally offer competiting, compatible products.

It is unclear exactly how music artists will make their money in the future
"

It is clear to me that it isn't IP laws that protect what passes for IP: but economics. As the cost of production collapses, as well as the means of production; pharmaceuticals will be in the same position as the music industry.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':