Copyright lecture

In this lecture we will focus on a number of important copyright decisions in Australia.  However, you should also be familiar with:

Copyright Act, and amending legislation relevant to the Internet - Computer Programs, Digital Agenda, 2004 amendments

Law reform

Australian cases - Kazaa (piracy), MP3s4free (piracy), Fairfax (newspaper headlines), Ice TV (compilations/databases), Telstra (computer generated compilations), iiNet (ISP liability) and TV Now

US cases - Napster, Grokster 

Recent news items - NSW police/Micro Focus, 92 year old pirate

Copyright/licensing bodies - Electronic Frontiers Australia, Creative Commons

Oracle v Google - verdict

Legal experts decipher Oracle-Google copyright verdict
http://cnet.co/J9Ycz5
Was the jury qualified?  See Washington Post.
More details here.

How to Muddy Your Tracks on the Internet

Legal and technology researchers estimate that it would take about a month for Internet users to read the privacy policies of all the Web sites they visit in a year. So in the interest of time, here is the deal: You know that dream where you suddenly realize you’re stark naked? You’re living it whenever you open your browser.
...
“Companies like Google are creating these enormous databases using your personal information,” said Paul Hill, senior consultant with SystemExperts, a network security company in Sudbury, Mass. “They may have the best of intentions now, but who knows what they will look like 20 years from now, and by then it will be too late to take it all back.”
See NY Times

info graphic - The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

A Technical Examination of SOPA and PIPA 

By Spencer Belkofer. LLRX.com, April 29, 2012 

http://www.llrx.com/features/sopapipa.htm        

SOPA is the Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA is the Protect IP Act.

Copyright Loss For Optus TV

National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59 (27 April 2012)

"The two primary issues raised in the appeals can be stated shortly. The first is: When a cinematograph film (or copy) and a sound recording (or copy) were made when a television broadcast of one of the AFL or NRL matches was recorded for a subscriber, who, for the purposes of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) was the maker of that film, sound recording or copy? Was it Optus or the subscriber (or both of them jointly)? The primary judge’s answer to this was that the maker was the subscriber.

Ours is a different conclusion. The maker was Optus or, in the alternative, it was Optus and the subscriber. It is unnecessary for present purposes to express a definitive view as between the two. Optus could be said to be the maker in that the service it offered to, and did, supply a subscriber was to make and to make available to that person a recording of the football match he or she selected. Alternatively Optus and the subscriber could be said to be the maker for Copyright Act purposes as they acted in concert for the purpose of making a recording of the particular broadcast which the subscriber required to be made and of which he or she initiated the automated process by which copies were produced. In other words, they were jointly and severally responsible for the act of copying. That is our preferred view.

The second question is: If Optus’ act in making such a film would otherwise constitute an infringement of the copyright of AFL, NRL or Telstra, can Optus invoke what we would inaccurately, but conveniently, call the “private and domestic use” defence of s 111 of the Act? The primary judge did not have to consider this, given his answer to the first question.

Our answer is that Optus cannot either as maker alone or as a maker with a subscriber bring itself within the scope of the s 111 exception on its proper construction."

See Comment Here.

Domain names

Discussion for this week's lecture will include:

• what is a domain name? 
• who ultimately controls domain names - what roles do ICANN, auDA play? 
• what legal rights do you have in a domain name?
• how much are domain names worth?
• what is cybersquatting?
• how can you resolve domain name disputes?  Please be familiar with the elements of the UDRP and the auDRP.  Are these processes preferable to court?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each option?
• how would you go about judging a domain name dispute under the UDRP?  Are the decisions consistent?
• what other policies and legal issues impact on an entitlement to domain names?
• new GTLDs

German Court case fails to settle YouTube copyright controversy

A German court has ruled that YouTube must erase seven contested videos over copyright issues. However, the decision has failed to settle the protracted copyright row raging on the Internet. Hamburg's State Court ruled on Friday that YouTube will have to take seven videos offline, including "Rivers of Babylon" by Boney M.

The verdict strengthens the position of Germany's royalty collections body GEMA which has been battling Google-owned YouTube over copyright issues for years.

The last agreement expired in 2009 and the conflicting parties have since been at loggerheads over the proper method to collect copyright fees.  However, Friday's verdict is not the landmark ruling which some had hoped would once and for all settle the contentious issue of copyright protection in the Internet.

Limited culpability
The Hamburg court decided that Internet platforms like YouTube are not directly liable for the breach of copyrights committed by users uploading protected material. However, the platform is now obliged to "deactivate immediately any illegal videos" once alerted by those holding the copyright.

Notably, the ruling does not oblige YouTube to check all content that has already been uploaded to its site – a key GEMA demand.

The judges said YouTube was not the main culprit because it does not upload or steal any content. Rather it facilitated the copyright breaches by offering and operating the online platform.

In order to prevent further copyright breaches, the judges called on YouTube to employ specific software capable of detecting songs in videos.

Business Method Patents

For tonights class, in addition to the reading listed below, the following recent Australian Patent Office decisions are relevant:

• Celgene Corporation [2012] APO 12
• Discovery Holdings Limited [2011] APO 56 (9th August 2011)

Jail time for Facebook Photos

A New South Wales man has been jailed for six months for posting nude pictures of his former lover on Facebook, Fairfax media has reported.

In the first social networking-related conviction in Australian history, Ravshan ”Ronnie” Usmanov posted six nude photos of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook shortly after they broke up.

The photos showed his ex-girlfriend "nude in certain positions and clearly showing her breasts and genitalia."

"I put the photos up because she hurt me and it was the only thing (I had) to hurt her," Usmanov, 20, was quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald as telling the police.

According to the report, Usmanov also emailed his girlfriend after posting the pictures, saying, “Some of your photos are now on Facebook."

The woman, who cannot be identified, requested Usmanov to take the pictures down but called the police when he refused.

In 2010, a New Zealand man was sentenced to four months in jail for posting a naked photo of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook.

His act was described as one of "irresponsible drunken rage" by presiding judge, who also said, "Technology can't be used in this way. You would do incalculable damage to someone's reputation."


Source:  Yahoo website

Domain Names - Example of Affiliate Marketing

iiNet High Court of Australia Decison - iiNet Wins

The High Court of Australia today handed down judgment in favour of iiNet in the copyright appeal, dealing with whether an ISP should be liable for copyright infringements of the ISP's customers.  Unanimous dismissal. French, Crennan and Kiefel in one judgment and separate judgment of Gummow and Hayne also dismissing appeal.

"Today the High Court dismissed an appeal by a number of film and television companies from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court held that the respondent, an internet service provider, had not authorised the infringement by its customers of the appellants' copyright in commercially released films and television programs."

Summary:
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hcasum16_2012_04_20_iiNet.pdf

Judgment:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html

My commentary in The Age

Class 8: Internet and eCommerce Patents

Reading for the Internet patent class:

• Patent Wars
• What should be patented?
• Do Internet patents threaten ecommerce?
• History of software and Internet patents
• Mayo Medical Laboratories v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court decision 20 March 2012)
• State Street Bank
• Welcome Real-Time
• Bilski
• CLS Bank v Alice

Also, please read the prior posts located here on patents.

e-book Price Fixing?

Last week, the United States Department of Justice and 16 U.S. States sued Apple and several publishers alleging a conspiracy to raise retail prices for e-books. 

In the Southern District of New York, the Department sued Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, and Penguin, reaching a settlement with Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster.  The Department’s complaint and proposed final judgment can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/applebooks.html

The Department’s press release and statements by Attorney General Holder and Acting Assistant Attorney General Pozen can be found here:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2012/282133.htm

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-1204111.html

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/282147.htm

In the Western District of Texas, the a number of States sued Apple, Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, and Penguin. The States'  redacted complaint can be found here: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2012/041112ebooks_complaint.pdf 

The States were led by the Texas AG and the Connecticut AG. The States did not sue HarperCollins or Hachette, but stated they had reached agreement with the two publishers on restitution and injunctive releif.  Here is the Texas AG’s press release: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=4026

Class 7: Liability of intermediatories and ISPs

This class deals with liability of intermediaries. For example, is an ISP liable for the conduct of its users? Is a web hosting company liable for the content of others that it hosts? Is TripAdvisor liable for reviews of hotels posted by users? Is Google liable for the content that appears on this blog?

Should such intermediaries be liable for the actions of others?

This is a very topical class, with a number of relevant decisions from the past two weeks.  Thus, there is a lot of reading for this class.

The main reading for the class is the iiNet case:

• Trial Judge Decision
• Full Court Appeal Decision

The iiNet case is currently on appeal to the High Court of Australia.  Oral argument has been heard, and we are waiting for judgment.  It is reported that judgment will be handed down on Friday, 20 April.  Transcripts and written submissions can be found on the High Court website.

Please also read the very recent case: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Google Inc. [2012] FCAFC 49 decided last week; and compare UK position summarised here.

Also, read the following:

• MegaUpLoad and Kim Dotcom indictment; and users trying to get access to their data and MegaRetrevial
• Viacom v. Google decided by the Second Circuit on 5 April 2012; and see note here (and older notes here: YouTube and note and Summary Judgment)
• Bunt case
• Cooper case
• ACCC v Allergy Pathways and ACCC Press Release
• Stratton Oakmont and follow-up
• Communications Decency Act section 230
• TripAdvisor: Terms; Restaurant Gives Up; tips; and Findlaw note; and another lawsuit
• DMCA - Unintended Consequences White Paper

Google Liable for Misleading Advertisements

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia today decided that Google was liable for misleading advertisements placed by advertisers.  See Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Google Inc. [2012] FCAFC 49.

The 3-0 judgment against Google included the following text:

"An ordinary and reasonable user would conclude from these circumstances that it was Google who was displaying the sponsored link in collocation with the sponsor's URL in response to the user's search.  Even if all these circumstances would not be apparent to ordinary and reasonable users, so that Google could not be "seen" by them to be more than a mere conduit, these circumstances show that Google is, in fact, much more than a mere conduit.  ...  Critical to this conclusion is the fact that the sponsored link is displayed on the screen in response to a user's query which is made by the entry of selected key words.  Thus, the user asks a question of Google and obtains Google's response.  Several features of the overall process indicate that Google engages in misleading conduct. ...

Google supplies its advertising customers with the ability to select keywords which are expected to be used by persons making enquiries through Google's search engine.  The ability of advertisers to select "broad match" keywords enables them to trigger sponsored links through Google's search engine based on known associations which are determined by Google's proprietary algorithm.  Although the keywords are selected by the advertiser, perhaps with input from Google, what is critical to the process is the triggering of the link by Google using its algorithms.  That is a further reason to conclude that it is Google's conduct as a principal, not merely as a conduit, which is involved in each of the four instances that form the subject matter of this appeal."

Copyright & Theft

"THE Justice Department is building its case against Megaupload, the hugely popular file-sharing site that was indicted earlier this year on multiple counts of copyright infringement and related crimes. The company’s servers have been shut down, its assets seized and top employees arrested. And, as is usual in such cases, prosecutors and their allies in the music and movie industries have sought to invoke the language of “theft” and “stealing” to frame the prosecutions and, presumably, obtain the moral high ground. ...


The problem is that most people simply don’t buy the claim that illegally downloading a song or video from the Internet really is like stealing a car. According to a range of empirical studies, including one conducted by me and my social psychologist collaborator, Matthew Kugler, lay observers draw a sharp moral distinction between file sharing and genuine theft, even when the value of the property is the same."


See NY Times opinion article from U.S. law school professor.

Copyright Exceptions To Be Reviewed

Draft terms of reference for an Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) inquiry into the operation of copyright exceptions in the digital environment were released today for public comment.

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said the ALRC will consider whether the exceptions in the Federal Copyright Act are adequate and appropriate in the digital environment.  The draft terms of reference reflect the fact that technology is constantly evolving and testing the boundaries of copyright law Ms Roxon said.

"In our fast changing, technologically driven world, it important to ensure our copyright laws are keeping pace with change and able to respond to future challenges.  We want to ensure this review has enough scope to look at the key areas of copyright so were calling on stakeholders to provide us with their feedback before the ALRC begins its work."

The draft terms of reference ask the ALRC to examine the adequacy and appropriateness of a broad range of exceptions in the Copyright Act, including time shifting.

The draft terms of reference also direct the ALRC to consider whether exceptions should allow the legitimate non-commercial use of copyright works for uses on the internet such as social networking.

The Government has appointed Professor Jill McKeough, University of Technology Sydney Dean of Law, to the ALRC as a Commissioner to lead the copyright inquiry.

Class 6 - Content Regulation

Reading for next Monday's class on Content Regulation.

This class will focus on laws and current issues relating to the regulation of content on the Internet.

Should freedom of speech on the Internet prevail over protection of the public interest? Does the public need to be protected? What is the difference between censorship and regulation?

What are the relevant public interests? Who decides?

Should there by government regulation, or reliance on technology (such as NetNanny), or parental responsibility (e.g., see Google's Family Safety Centre)?

Reading:

• Class Text:  Chapter 3, Internet and E-commerce Law by Fitzgerald et al
• Content Regulation in the Internet Age
• New classification review
• Online content regulation
• Australian ISPs forced to clean Internet and "mandatory web filter under fire"; and scheme ends
• Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedom
• Anti-piracy v. internet freedom
• China and "China Web Censorship Stirs Scorn", see also Wiki

• Canadian hate speech decision
• Racial Discrimination Act section 18C
• Westboro Baptist Church: article and protest and decision
• Is Cyberspace Burning?
• Lawsuit against Hate Blogger.

Extra Reading if you are interested:

• Regulation of Hate Speech, by Kagan (now on the U.S. Supreme Court)

Privacy Issues re Apps

Congressmen Send Inquiries to 34 App Developers Over Privacy Practices:

See MacRumours

Privacy

Please review the following privacy materials for the next lecture.

Australia
General information - OAIC, Australian Privacy Foundation, Electronic Frontiers
How prevalent (and relevant) are privacy concerns in Australia? How would you pursue a privacy complaint?

Legislation - look at the Privacy Act and the National Privacy Principles. Are further reforms on the way?

Case reports - review (and be ready to discuss) some privacy decisions, whether made by the Federal Privacy Commissioner or the Australian Information Commissioner.
You should also be aware of relevant case law in this area - is there a right to privacy at common law? Will there be in the future?

International
Art 17 of ICCPR.

Contractual rights
Look at the privacy policy of at least 2 websites you frequently use. Do you agree to all the terms and conditions?
For example - Google, News

Cookies
Are cookies a privacy concern, or a part of everyday life?

Recent news
Google and more Google
Then Google maps - what have been the different responses around the world?
Facebook and also here

International Online Shopping

U.S. stores are shipping to customers in Australia.

"International visitors are coming to American sites because of lower prices and the availability of products they cannot get in their own countries, according to Forrester. Macy’s has found that Australian shoppers are particularly interested in its trendy clothes, while Canadians want basics like coats, shoes and underwear."  See NYT

What legal issues could arise for the U.S. sellers and the Australian buyers?

Wrong Takedown Demand

What happens if a person issues a copyright take down demand to a file sharing website such as Vimeo or YouTube, and it is wrong.  Potential liability for unjustified threats.
See Bell v. Steele
See also:  SMH Article and Note.

Privacy Lawsuit Against Twitter, Apple, Facebook

Privacy suit filed against Path, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, others
http://cnet.co/FOc5zl or PCMag

Telephone Numbers, Domain Names and Trade Marks

Have a look at this recent decision concerning a trade mark application for a telephone number:
1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks [2012] FCA 209
This case involves a dispute between 1300Flowers and 1800Flowers.
It reminds me of the domain name decisions concerning "Phonewords".  See for example:
the 1300fitness.com.au decision.

For Creators of Games, a Faint Line on Cloning

"Cloning the soul of a game — its gameplay mechanics, design, characters and storyline — is now commonplace in digital marketplaces like Apple’s iOS App Store and Google’s Android. And while the app stores have offered an unparalleled opportunity for independent software makers to reach customers and make money with an innovative game, they are learning it is just as easy for another game studio to compete with a very similar game."
See Full Article

YAHOO Sues Facebook For Infringing 10 patents

Reuters reports Yahoo has sued Facebook for infringing 10 patents.

Article at:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/12/us-yahoo-facebook-lawsuit-idUSBRE82B18M20120312

A copy of the lawsuit, with a list of the ten patents, is available at:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/85094882/Yahoo-s-Patent-Lawsuit-Against-Facebook

Class 4 - Spam, crime and phishing

Next week we will be looking at spam, crime and phishing.

Please look at the relevant chapters of the textbook (chapter 11 and part of chapter 3) as well as the following materials.


Spam

Australian law - Spam Act 2003 (Cth)
US law - CAN-SPAM Act
EU directive - Directive on privacy and electronic communications (Article 13)
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
Internet industry Spam Code of Practice

How effective are these laws?

Crime
Australian law - Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
Scale of cybercrime - Symantec report
Australian Federal Police
Lulzsec
Cost - here and here

Is cybercrime underreported? Australian Institute of Criminology

Phishing
Australian government - Scamwatch
Anti Phishing Working Group
Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance

What is the best way to respond to phishing - raising awareness, enacting legislation or cutting off scam emails before they arrive?

False Names When Using the Internet

Attorney: Social networks must require real names
http://cnet.co/zvJ6Pf

Google Play

Email from Google:


Today we introduced Google Play, a new digital content destination available on mobile devices and on the web. With Google Play, users can buy and experience books, music, movies and Android apps, available across their devices. Google Play gives our partners and the ecosystem an integrated entertainment hub for Android and Google users. As part of this launch, Google eBooks and Android Market will become part of Google Play, and users will now get their ebooks from Google Play.

In addition, customers who go to the web ebookstore will be redirected to the Google Play store. While this doesn't change the way consumers read Google eBooks, it does provide a more compelling mobile purchase experience.

We are excited about the opportunities ahead to "play" together.

Google Play team

Helpful Resources:
Google Play overview - http://play.google.com/about
Google Play brand assets - http://www.android.com/branding.html
FAQs - http://support.google.com/books/partner/bin/answer.py?answer=2494942

Week 3 - Internet Jurisdiction

The next class is Internet jurisdiction. 
Presentation from class is here.
Please read the following:
The relevant chapter in the assigned class text.

Wikipedia introduction and personal jurisdiction

Sliding Scale Test:

Zippo case

Effects Test:

Calder v. Jones (US Supreme Court)

Application of Effects Test:

Ubid v. GoDaddy

Weather Underground case (and complete court file for this case if interested)

Penguin Group v. American Buddha

Trademark and Calder Test

Australian approach:

Dow Jones v. Gutnick (High Court of Australia)

[Defamation - including Internet cases - background information if interested]

Comment: Determining Internet Jurisdiction

What happens if the Defendant does not show up?

Bell v Steele (No 2) [2012] FCA 62 (7 February 2012) - a case that involves a film made in NY and Australia by Richard Bell from Brisbane, that was uploaded to Vimeo from Australia, and where a person in NY had the film removed from Vimeo.

Could two courts come to an inconsistent result in the same case?
See The Secret litigation:

Background: The Australian

Australian Trial Judge Decision

Full Court of Federal Court Decision

Note regarding US decision on jurisdiction

Yahoo Facebook Patent War

 Yahoo has demanded licensing fees from Facebook for use of its technology, the companies said on Monday, potentially engulfing social media in the patent battles and lawsuits raging across much of the tech sector.

Yahoo has asserted claims on patents that include the technical mechanisms in the Facebook's ads, privacy controls, news feed and messaging service, according to a source briefed on the matter.

Representatives from the two companies met on Monday and the talks involved 10 to 20 of Yahoo's patents, said the source, who was not aware of what specific dollar demands Yahoo may have made for licenses.

See Yahoo and Managing IP

Week 2: The Law of Google

This class will look at Google's business models, and the legal issued raised.

Have a high level look at the following parts of the Google empire:

• Ten Things We Know To Be True
• Google Products
• Google Books
• AdWords and AdWords Help
• AdSense
• New Privacy Policy (and review material linked from this page)

Reading:

• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Trading Post Australia [2011] FCA 1086 (22 September 2011), currently on appeal
• Financial Times:  Google Privacy Policy Gets Public Airing (2 March 2012)
• Click Fraud
• Advanced Click Fraud

Additional Reading if you have time:

• Official Google Blog
• Google's Inside Search
• 40 Changes for February 2012
• Google Watch Blog
• Prior Blog Posts Concerning Google
• Google's Guide to having your website indexed properly in Google search results

Hosted Domains

• Example
• Google Closing Down Hosted Domains
• Note

IP Addresses

[Student Post]

For those that didn’t know, the world is running out of IP Addresses:

http://technology.inquirer.net/infotech/infotech/view/20110121-315808/World-running-out-of-Internet-addresses

It has been known for some time that the current structure of IP addresses is not sufficient for the number of computers/devices accessing the internet in future. The current structure of IP addresses, known as IPv4, is structured as xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (e.g. 192.168.0.1) which limits this number of unique addresses to 4,294,967,296.

With the limit of Ipv4 addresses expected to be exhausted soon and the number of internet connected devices estimated to reach 22 billion by 2020 (IMS Research) it is clear a new IP standard is required.

Thankfully a group known as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has been developing IPv6 since the early 90’s which provides for 340 undecillon (that’s 340 with 36 zeros) unique addresses. (e.g. 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334).  However, proliferation of IPv6 has been slow with Google estimating in 2008 that IPv6 uptake among users was less than 1%. The need for replacement and/or updating of some hardware and software is partly to blame for this slow rate of uptake.

So it seems a significant burden has been placed on the IETF to ensure the smooth running of the internet through the adoption of IPv6. That’s a lot of technical control for how the internet of the future is run. Interestingly the IETF is a volunteer organisation with no formal membership. Their work is funded by employers of its volunteers and sponsors including the US National Security Agency (NSA).

                Questions this raises for me:

-          If IPv6 is developed through volunteers Is the internet controlled and owned by everyone?

-          Although ICANN is no longer US Government controlled it seems the IETF may be to some extent. If all roads lead to the US is the US government in control of the internet?

Another way of thinking about this issue might be “Who has the deepest level of technical control over how the internet is run?” Maybe that’s the IETF.

Kim Dotcom Interview

The first interview with Mr Dotcom after his arrest is here:

Campbell Live

Google Search Results Misleading

"In the Statement of Claim, the applicant alleges that, in the period from at least early April 2011 to 21 June 2011, the first respondent established a process by which searches for the applicant’s website by reference to the words “Pacific Boating” on the internet using the Google search engine were diverted to websites controlled by or associated with the first respondent."

See Pacific Boating Group Pty Ltd v Freedom Boating Club Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 72 (8 February 2012)

Domain Name - Use as a Trademark?

"Since 1995, Sports Warehouse had used the name “Tennis Warehouse” in Australia and did not change its domain name for its online store. Sports Warehouse, for the first time in closing submissions, (while conceding that reputation in the context of s 60 was that of the mark rather than reputation on some other basis), contended that as a significant number of Australian residents visited the Tennis Warehouse website at the domain names “www.tennis-warehouse.com” or “www.tenniswarehouse.com”, by inference they came to know Sports Warehouse by that word, which did not include a TW device. While acknowledging that, once at the website, the customer would encounter the TW device with the TENNIS WAREHOUSE trade mark, counsel for Sports Warehouse submitted that the court could infer, in such circumstances, a “capacity for confusion” at which s 60 was essentially directed.

While it has been held that a domain name can in some circumstances constitute use of a trade mark (see Sports Warehouse v Fry at [146]-[156]), there was no evidence before the court to establish that, as at December 2006, the TENNIS WAREHOUSE mark had acquired a reputation through use of the domain names amongst any consumers or any significant section of the public."

See Fry Consulting Pty Ltd v Sports Warehouse Inc (No 2) [2012] FCA 81 (13 February 2012)