This is an interesting set of infographics regarding the new gTLDs.
See www.webmechanix.com/how-to-react-to-new-generic-top-level-domains
A blog relating to Internet legal issues by Professor John Swinson, University of Queensland
Adsense HTML
COPYRIGHT POLICY, CREATIVITY, AND INNOVATION IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY
Lessig v. Liberation over takedown notice
Professor Lessig has sued Australian music label Liberation in the U.S. in relation to a computer generated take down notice sent to YouTube, to take down video of Lessig giving a seminar in Asia that included music licensed exclusively to Liberation in Australia.
If this case proceeds, there are interesting jurisdictional and fair use / fair dealing points that arise. If the use of the music was fair use in the U.S., but not fair dealing in Australia, and the video is available in Australia, one would assume that there is copyright infringement in Australia.
Brisbane Times article
The video in question
EFF press release
If this case proceeds, there are interesting jurisdictional and fair use / fair dealing points that arise. If the use of the music was fair use in the U.S., but not fair dealing in Australia, and the video is available in Australia, one would assume that there is copyright infringement in Australia.
Brisbane Times article
The video in question
EFF press release
Google and Defamation and Jursidiction
Google Australia has a defamation case against it tossed out, on the basis that it is Google Inc. that is operating the search engine and Blogger.
See SMH
See SMH
Informational Privacy on the Web
A Data Broker Offers a Peek Behind the Curtain
The Acxiom Corporation is to open a Web site that will allow individual consumers to see some of the information that the company has collected about them. http://nyti.ms/17slfwv
Computer Implemented Method Patentable in Australia
RPL Central Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2013] FCA 871
Broadly, the claimed invention related to the assessment of the competency or qualifications of individuals with respect to recognised standards. It was implemented using a computer.
Claim 1 included the following steps:
The Federal Court of Australia today determined that this claim recited patentable subject matter.
Broadly, the claimed invention related to the assessment of the competency or qualifications of individuals with respect to recognised standards. It was implemented using a computer.
Claim 1 included the following steps:
(a) a computer retrieving via the internet from a remotely-located server a plurality of assessable criteria associated with the recognised qualification standard, said criteria including one or more elements of competency, each of which is associated with one or more performance criteria;
(b) the computer processing the plurality of assessable criteria to generate automatically a corresponding plurality of questions relating to the competency of an individual to satisfy each of the elements of competency and performance criteria associated with the recognised qualification standard;
(c) an assessment server presenting the automatically-generated questions via the internet to a computer of an individual requiring assessment; and
(d) receiving from the individual via their computer a series of responses to the automatically-generated questions, the responses including evidence of the individual’s skills, knowledge and experience in relation to each of the elements of competency and performance criteria, wherein at least one said response includes the individual specifying one or more files on their computer which are transferred to the assessment server.
The Federal Court of Australia today determined that this claim recited patentable subject matter.
Thredbo.com Decision
The Federal Court recently released its decision in the case brought by the owners of thredbo.com.au against thredbo.com.
The decision is: Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited [2013] FCA 563
The decision is: Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Limited v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited [2013] FCA 563
realestate.com.au Federal Court decision
On Friday, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in the realestate.com.au v. realestate1.com.au case.
The decision is [2013] FCA 539.
The case concerned a generic term, that was used as a domain name, but where significant advertising had built up recognition of the brand. The Applicant lost on consumer protection grounds but was successful in relation to trade mark infringement. The case shows the risks of using a dictionary term as a brand, and the importance of a trade mark registration.
"245 However that observation about the ordinary case does not really address (as neither Perram J nor Chesterman J were called upon to address) a situation where the highly descriptive nature of the second-level domain (“realestate”) makes a suffix such as “.com.au” essential to brand or name recognition. Consumers with some familiarity with realestate.com.au as a brand are likely to look beyond “realestate” and to the entire domain name in order to establish identity. A real danger of confusion again arises because in the scanning process which may occur on a search results page, some consumers will miss the indistinctive “1”. I have therefore concluded that the use of “realestate1.com.au” as part of an internet address on a search results page, constituted the use by Real Estate 1 of a mark that was deceptively similar to REA’s realestate.com.au trade marks."
The decision is [2013] FCA 539.
The case concerned a generic term, that was used as a domain name, but where significant advertising had built up recognition of the brand. The Applicant lost on consumer protection grounds but was successful in relation to trade mark infringement. The case shows the risks of using a dictionary term as a brand, and the importance of a trade mark registration.
"245 However that observation about the ordinary case does not really address (as neither Perram J nor Chesterman J were called upon to address) a situation where the highly descriptive nature of the second-level domain (“realestate”) makes a suffix such as “.com.au” essential to brand or name recognition. Consumers with some familiarity with realestate.com.au as a brand are likely to look beyond “realestate” and to the entire domain name in order to establish identity. A real danger of confusion again arises because in the scanning process which may occur on a search results page, some consumers will miss the indistinctive “1”. I have therefore concluded that the use of “realestate1.com.au” as part of an internet address on a search results page, constituted the use by Real Estate 1 of a mark that was deceptively similar to REA’s realestate.com.au trade marks."
Hotel Executive In Trouble over TripAdvisor reviews
ASX rules on Social Media
The Australian Stock Exchange has continuous disclosure rules. See Guidance Note 8, which has guidance about social media. See also BRW article.
Are Online Reviews Reliable?
A recent newspaper article discusses whether online review websites, such as TripAdvisor, are reliable.
See Bad Reputation.
See Bad Reputation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
How should damages be assessed for privacy and cybersecurity breaches
Listen to this podcast where I discuss how damages should be assessed in privacy and cybersecurity lawsuits. The Lawyers Weekly Show host J...
-
The United Nations intellectual property agency (WIPO) is the latest front in the US-China trade war. http://www.theage.com.au/world/sad-am...
-
The issue of content regulation in China was mentioned in this blog last year . In the last few weeks, this issue has once again pushed into...
-
Finally, what is called direct registration of domain names is coming to Australia. See https://www.auda.org.au/statement/australias-interne...