The case of KK Sony Computer Entertainment and Another v Pacific Game Technology (Holding) Ltd [2006], concerned the infringement of copyright in computer games systems under the name of ‘PlayStation’. The first claimant was a Japanese company and the second claimant was its UK subsidiary. Both claimants were corporate incarnations of the well known Japanese electronics group, Sony.
One of Sony's products was the latest version of its highly successful family of computer game systems marketed under the name 'PlayStation' which the second claimant marketed and sold in over 100 countries, including countries within the European Economic Area (“EEA”). In respect of those computer game systems Sony owned:
§ Five Community trade marks;
§ One UK registered trade mark (those registrations included the word 'PlayStation');
§ Two registered designs (those being a UK registered design and a Community registered design); and
§ Several copyright works (including the computer program, the menu icons, the surface design of the box and the user manual).
The defendant was a company incorporated in Hong Kong which operated a website, www.lik-sang.com. The website had been set up to offer for sale a variety of commercial video games, consoles and accessories for playing music, video games and such items. The defendant also marketed and offered for sale from its website portable consoles (PSP consoles) and related games, movies and accessories.
The PSP consoles so offered were genuine products made by Sony for sale within the Japanese market only. The claimants' case was that by targeting customers in the EEA, in particular, the UK, the defendant had infringed Sony's intellectual property rights associated with the PSP consoles. They also submitted that the intellectual property rights in the items associated with the PSP (such as the packaging) had also been infringed. They sought appropriate injunctions, delivery up, disclosure of names, and an enquiry as to damages, or in the alternative, an account of profits and costs.
Following an unsuccessful application by the defendant for the court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction, the action continued undefended. The issues to be considered before the court were:
§ Whether the claimants had consented to have the relevant products sold in the EEA; and
§ Whether by offering the goods for sale on its website, the defendant had fallen within any of the acts which gave rise to infringement under the relevant statute.
The application was allowed. The acts complained of had been perpetrated not in Hong Kong, but in the EEA, and without Sony's consent. Were these acts, complained of, committed physically within the EEA they would have been infringing acts. The electronic intermediary of a website which focussed at least in part on the EEA could not make them any less so. The claimants were therefore entitled to the reliefs sought.
If you require further information contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com
Intellectual property law firm advising on patents, Patent attorneys, Patent Lawyers, Copyright, designs, Copyright law, know-how, Patent Licensing, Patent Infringement, trade marks, trademarks, trademark searches, trademark infringement, Intellectual Property Law, IP lawyers, IP solicitors, copyright lawyers, IP lawyers, IP law Firm, IP valuations IP solicitors freedom to operate copyright lawyers, patent solicitors, branding, intellectual property lawyers, intellectual property solicitors, IP law firm, solicitors in Docklands, solicitors in Wapping, pharmaceutical lawyers, regulatory lawyers, regulatory solicitors, pharmaceutical solicitors Visit www.rtcoopersiplaw.com
© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Rosanna_Cooper
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Digital Millennium Copyright Act DMCA Redefined - Steps to Keep Your Content and Intellectual Proper
As Viacom prepares to square off against Google in its lawsuit over the use of copyrighted material on YouTube, the provisions of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA] are being widely discussed and are sure to be hotly debated. When the law was passed in 1998, Internet and technology companies got a clause inserted that relieves them of liability for being just innocent conduits.
What that really means, and how it will be applied in this watershed case, remains to be seen.
U.S. copyright protection began in 1790 when George Washington signed the first copyright law. For the next two centuries, changes in the law were infrequent, driven usually by revolutionary advances in technology. Under the umbrella of intellectual property, a bevy of protections encourages innovation and equitably compensates inventors and creators for their efforts. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan got to the core of the issue when he said, “the economic product of the United States has become predominantly conceptual.”
The facts support his observation. Today, 75% of the value of publicly traded U.S. companies comes from intangible assets such as intellectual property. In the U.S., licensing revenue amounts to about $45 billion annually. Worldwide, the figure approaches $100 billion.
New technologies require creative approaches to intellectual property. In the early 1990s, innovations in production, distribution, and access to copyright materials led dominant players in the entertainment and information industries to collaborate on redrafting the copyright law to protect their substantial investments in creative content.
The result was The Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA] of 1998, designed to prevent the use of current technology, including the Internet, to duplicate or distribute copyrighted material such as music, movies, and literature.
Intellectual asset management is a strategic business issue because business today is competitive, global, and fueled by information transmitted instantly 24/7.
No company understands this global battlefield better than Microsoft. An army of lawyers files hundreds of legal actions annually to protect the billions it spends on research and development. They also do battle in the court of public opinion. In March 2007, for example, Microsoft launched an offensive against Google and its intention to scan every copyrighted book into a database.
If you don’t have Microsoft’s millions to defend your creative content and intellectual property, here are four straightforward steps you can take:
1. Tell and sell. The same story you tell in court is the same story you should be selling to the media.
2. Remember that if you’re instituting the action, you’re on the offense and that the defense is usually constrained from commenting on a case. Exploit this natural advantage with the media.
3. Watch your back. So-called advocates and adversaries are usually motivated by their own agenda.
4. You must know the rules of the game. Every situation is unique. If you don’t have relevant experience or expertise, hire the best talent you can find.
Honored as Crisis Agency of the Year by The Holmes Report in 2005, Levick Strategic Communications protects brands and reputations during high-stakes litigation with comprehensive campaigns on behalf of clients on litigation communications. Visit http://www.levick.com to find other helpful articles, books, and newsletters.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Levick
What that really means, and how it will be applied in this watershed case, remains to be seen.
U.S. copyright protection began in 1790 when George Washington signed the first copyright law. For the next two centuries, changes in the law were infrequent, driven usually by revolutionary advances in technology. Under the umbrella of intellectual property, a bevy of protections encourages innovation and equitably compensates inventors and creators for their efforts. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan got to the core of the issue when he said, “the economic product of the United States has become predominantly conceptual.”
The facts support his observation. Today, 75% of the value of publicly traded U.S. companies comes from intangible assets such as intellectual property. In the U.S., licensing revenue amounts to about $45 billion annually. Worldwide, the figure approaches $100 billion.
New technologies require creative approaches to intellectual property. In the early 1990s, innovations in production, distribution, and access to copyright materials led dominant players in the entertainment and information industries to collaborate on redrafting the copyright law to protect their substantial investments in creative content.
The result was The Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA] of 1998, designed to prevent the use of current technology, including the Internet, to duplicate or distribute copyrighted material such as music, movies, and literature.
Intellectual asset management is a strategic business issue because business today is competitive, global, and fueled by information transmitted instantly 24/7.
No company understands this global battlefield better than Microsoft. An army of lawyers files hundreds of legal actions annually to protect the billions it spends on research and development. They also do battle in the court of public opinion. In March 2007, for example, Microsoft launched an offensive against Google and its intention to scan every copyrighted book into a database.
If you don’t have Microsoft’s millions to defend your creative content and intellectual property, here are four straightforward steps you can take:
1. Tell and sell. The same story you tell in court is the same story you should be selling to the media.
2. Remember that if you’re instituting the action, you’re on the offense and that the defense is usually constrained from commenting on a case. Exploit this natural advantage with the media.
3. Watch your back. So-called advocates and adversaries are usually motivated by their own agenda.
4. You must know the rules of the game. Every situation is unique. If you don’t have relevant experience or expertise, hire the best talent you can find.
Honored as Crisis Agency of the Year by The Holmes Report in 2005, Levick Strategic Communications protects brands and reputations during high-stakes litigation with comprehensive campaigns on behalf of clients on litigation communications. Visit http://www.levick.com to find other helpful articles, books, and newsletters.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Levick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)