Copyright and Media in France

Ebay v Hermès: Ebay Liable For Trade Mark Infringement

2010-08-28T20:05:00.001+02:00

Court of Appeal of Reims, 20 July 2010, www.legalis.net

Hosting providers (e.g. YouTube) enjoy a limitation of liability system, under the Directive on Electronic Commerce and the French Act on Confidence in the Digital Economy of June 21, 2004 (Loi pour la Confiance dans l’Economie Numérique, “LCEN”).

However, the Court of Appeal of Reims, in a decision of 20 July 2010, considered that Ebay acts as a “publisher of services”, and not a mere hosting provider with solely a technical and passive role, because in the present case it incited users to buy other products, in particular in a section called “purchase suggestion”. In addition, the Court took into consideration the fact that Ebay receives a percentage of the price paid for the product.

The Court therefore condemned Ebay for infringing on Hermès’ trade mark by allowing a user of the site to sell the counterfeit handbags, and presenting them in an attractive manner.

BRAD SPITZ

Ebay v Hermès: Ebay condamnée pour contrefaçon de marque

2010-08-28T20:00:00.001+02:00

Cour d’Appel de Reims, 20 juillet 2010, www.legalis.net

Les prestataires d’hébergement, tels que YouTube par exemple, bénéficient d’un régime de limitation de responsabilité, en application de la Directive sur le commerce électronique et la Loi sur Confiance dans l’Economie Numérique du 21 juin 2004 (dite loi LCEN).

La Cour d’appel de Reims a toutefois estimé, dans un arrêt du 20 juillet 2010, qu’Ebay agit comme un éditeur de services, et non comme un simple prestataire d’hébergement ayant un rôle uniquement technique et passif, lorsque le site incite ses utilisateurs à achter d’autres produits (notamment avec sa rubrique « suggestion d’achat »). La Cour a également pris en considération le fait qu’Ebay reçoit un pourcentage du prix des ventes.

La Cour condamne ainsi Ebay pour contrefaçon de la marque Hermès, Ebay ayant permis à un utilisateur du site de vendre des sacs contrefaisants et de les présenter de manière attractive.

BRAD SPITZ

The Long Lasting Exclusivity in Recording Agreements

2010-08-14T14:12:00.003+02:00

Cour de cassation (1st Civil Chamber), 11 February 2010, RDLI n° 61, S. Pessina Dassonville

The radio broadcaster Europe 1 had made live recordings of the late French artists Barbara and Joe Dassin for a show. At the time of the recordings, the artists were bound by exclusive recording agreements (with Universal Music and Sony BMG), which provided that they were not allowed to record with any other record producer during the term of the agreement.

Therefore, except if otherwise provided for by contract (with the record producers), Europe 1 could only have non-exclusive right limited to the primary destination of the said recordings: that is to say broadcasting.

Europe 1 however authorised licensees to exploit these recordings in the form of records. The exclusive producers therefore successively asked the court to condemn Europe 1 and the companies that exploited the recordings under a licence, not on the grounds of copyright infringement (Universal Music and Sony BMG do not have any intellectual property rights in the recordings produced by Europe 1), but on the grounds of unfair competition (i.e. tort).

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

La portée de l’exclusivité dans les contrats d’artistes

2010-08-13T10:44:00.001+02:00

Cour de cassation (1re chambre civile), 11 Février 2010, RDLI n° 61, S. Pessina Dassonville

Le radiodiffuseur Europe 1 avait réalisé, il y a de nombreuses années, des enregistrements live des artistes Barbara et Joe Dassin aujourd’hui décédés, pour une de ces émissions. Les artistes étaient, à l’époque des enregistrements, liés par des contrats d’enregistrement exclusif (avec Universal Music et Sony BMG), aux termes desquels ils s’interdisaient de procéder à tout autre enregistrement pendant la durée du contrat.

Par conséquent, à défaut de clause contraire, Europe 1 ne pouvait avoir sur ces enregistrements que des droits non-exclusifs limités à la destination première : la radioffusion desdits enregistrements.

Or, Europe 1 avait autorisé des sociétés à exploiter ces enregistrements sous forme de supports phonographiques. Les producteurs exclusifs Universal Music et Sony BMG ont ainsi fait condamner Europe 1 et les sociétés exploitant les disques sous licence, non pas sur le fondement de la contrefaçon des droits de producteurs (les producteurs n’ayant pas de droits de propriété intellectuelles sur les enregistrements produits par Europe 1), mais sur le fondement de la concurrence déloyale (article 1382 du Code civil).

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Contrôle de la CNIL dans les locaux de l’entreprise : information préalable

2010-04-12T22:32:00.003+02:00

Conseil d'Etat, 6 novembre 2009, n° 304300 et 304301

Avec le développement de l’informatique et des réseaux, toutes les entreprises sont amenées à mettre en œuvre des traitements de données personnelles (gestion de clients, prospection commerciale, gestion des salariés, etc.).

Ces traitements de données personnelles doivent respecter les règles imposées par la loi informatique et liberté de 1978 (modifiée par la loi du 6 août 2004), et la CNIL a le pouvoir d’effectuer des contrôles sur place auprès des responsables des traitements.

La décision de procéder à une mission de contrôle appartient au Président de la CNIL, qui n’est pas obligé de prévenir le responsable du traitement, et ce afin de ménager l’effet de surprise indispensable à la réussite du contrôle (les traitements illicites étant faciles à supprimer).

Or, le Conseil d’Etat vient d’annuler (par deux décisions en date du 6 novembre 2009, n° 304300 et 304301) deux sanctions prises par la CNIL à l’encontre de sociétés de prospection téléphonique qui utilisaient des données personnelles en violation des dispositions de la loi informatique et libertés.

Au visa de l’article 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et du principe de proportionnalité de l’ingérence d’une autorité publique dans la marche normale des affaires, le Conseil d’Etat a estimé que le responsable de locaux doit être prévenu de la visite de contrôle. Selon le Conseil, le responsable des locaux doit être mis en mesure de pouvoir exercer son pouvoir de s’opposer à la visite de la CNIL (ce droit est prévu par la loi), la visite s’exerçant alors avec une autorisation judiciaire.

Suite aux décisions du Conseil d’Etat, la CNIL doit donc aujourd’hui soit prévenir le responsable des locaux de la visite de contrôle prévue (ce qui rend le contrôle inefficace), soit, et c’est certainement ce que la CNIL fera, requérir préalablement à toute visite l’autorisation du juge judiciaire. La loi sera sans doute modifiée en ce sens.

Whistle-blowing: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act in France

2010-04-12T22:01:00.004+02:00

The CNIL (the French data controller – La Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés) defines a ‘whistle-blowing device’ as a system put at the disposal of the employees of a public or a private body in addition to the normal ways of alerting the malfunctioning of the body, in order to incite them to signal to their employer any behaviour that they consider violates the applicable rules. The CNIL admitted the use of whistle-blowing in order to enable French companies to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 30 July 2002, which imposes the implementation of whistle-blowing systems, as well as with the French law relating to personal data processing (“Informatique et Libertés” Act). French firms and subsidiaries of companies quoted on the New York Stock Exchange indeed have to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in particular by implementing whistle-blowing systems.

In order to simplify procedures, the CNIL adopted a ‘Single Authorisation’ which sets the conditions with which companies must comply in order to benefit from a simplification of the procedures that have to be accomplished to implement whistle-blowing systems (Single authorisation: http://www.cnil.fr/en-savoir-plus/deliberations/deliberation/delib/83/). When a company wishes to implement such systems, it only has to declare that its system complies with the conditions set out by the ‘single authorisation’.

The whistle-blowing systems are in compliance with the single authorisation if certain conditions are met, in particular the following:

- alerts may only be concerned with accounting, banking and the fight against corruption;
- companies that want to implement such devices must warn employees by making certain information available to them;
- the system must not encourage anonymous denunciations.

The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), in a ruling of 8 December 2009 (concerning the Code of Behaviour of Dassault Systèmes relating to information for internal use and whistle-blowing), decided that a whistle-blowing system may be used only for the purpose of internal control in the fields of finance, accounting, banking and the fight against corruption. The device implemented by the group Dassault Systèmes had a wider objective, insofar as the system also concerned the breach of conduct rules distinct from such purposes; therefore the whistle-blowing system could not benefit from the CNIL’s ‘single authorisation’.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the scope of the ‘single authorisation’ is thus extremely restricted. Indeed, the CNIL’s single authorisation provides that the single authorisation may also concern alerts relating to facts that undermine “the vital interests of the organisation or the physical or moral integrity of the employees” (section 3 of the single authorisation).

The CNIL indicated that it would soon modify its ‘single authorisation’ in order to take this ruling into consideration.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Alertes professionnelles : la position restrictive de la Cour de cassation

2010-03-29T00:09:00.003+02:00

Cass. soc., 8 déc. 2009, n° 08-17.191

La Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) définit le dispositif d’alerte professionnelle comme un système mis à la disposition des employés d'un organisme public ou privé pour les inciter, en complément des modes normaux d'alerte sur les dysfonctionnements de l'organisme, à signaler à leur employeur des comportements qu'ils estiment contraires aux règles applicables et pour organiser la vérification de l'alerte ainsi recueillie au sein de l'organisme concerné. La CNIL a admis le principe de l’alerte professionnelle afin de permettre aux sociétés françaises de se conformer à la fois aux exigences de la loi américaine Sarbanes-Oxley du 30 juillet 2002, qui impose la mise en place de systèmes de « whistleblowing », et aux dispositions de la loi française « Informatique et Libertés ». Les entreprises françaises et les filiales françaises de sociétés américaines côtées à la bourse de New York ont en effet eu à se conformer à la loi Sarbanes-Oxley, notamment en mettant en place des systèmes d’alerte professionnelle.

Dans un souci de simplification des procédures, la CNIL a adopté une décision d’autorisation unique fixant les conditions que les entreprises doivent respecter afin de pouvoir bénéficier d’une simplification des procédures à accomplir (décision d’autorisation unique n° AU-004 - http://www.cnil.fr/en-savoir-plus/deliberations/deliberation/delib/83/). Lorsqu’une entreprise souhaite mettre en place un système d’alerte professionnelle, elle n’a qu’à procéder à une déclaration de conformité aux conditions posées par ladite autorisation unique.

Les alertes professionnelles sont conformes si elles remplissent un certain nombre de conditions, notamment :

- les alertes ne peuvent concerner que le domaine comptable, le contrôle des comptes, le domaine bancaire et celui de la lutte contre la corruption ;

- les entreprises souhaitant mettre en place ce type de dispositifs doivent porter un certain nombre d’éléments d’information à la connaissance de leurs employés ;

- ces dispositifs ne doivent pas encourager les dénonciations anonymes. L’émetteur de l’alerte devra être identifiable, mais son identité ne sera pas révélée à la personne mise en cause. La personne concernée devra être informée dès que les preuves auront été préservées.

La Cour de cassation, dans un arrêt en date du 8 décembre 2009 (rendu au sujet du code de conduite des affaires de la société Dassault Systèmes relatif aux informations à usage interne et au dispositif d’alerte professionnelle), a précisé qu’un dispositif d’alerte ne peut avoir une autre finalité que l’établissement d’un contrôle interne dans les domaines financier, comptable, bancaire et de lutte contre la corruption.

Or, le dispositif mis en place par le groupe Dassault Systèmes avait un objet plus large, dans la mesure où le manquement à des règles de conduite étrangères à ces finalités pouvait donner lieu à une alerte professionnelle ; le dispositif ne pouvait donc pas bénéficier de l’autorisation unique de la CNIL.

La Cour de cassation adopte ainsi une vision très restrictive du champ d’application de l’autorisation unique, qui prévoit que le dispositif peut également concerner des alertes portant sur des faits mettant en jeu « l’intérêt vitale de l’organisme ou de l’intégrité physique ou morale de ses employés » (art. 3 de l’autorisation unique).

La CNIL a indiqué qu’elle modifierait prochainement son autorisation unique pour prendre en compte cette décision.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Hotels Subjected To Pay Fees To The Music Collecting Society SACEM

2010-03-28T21:49:00.000+02:00

Cour de cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, January 14, 2010, n° 08-16.022

In a decision rendered on 14 January 2010, the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) upheld the ruling condemning a hotel to the payment of copyright fees due for broadcasting audiovisual programmes containing musical works from the repertoire of the collecting body SACEM.

The Court indeed considered that even though the clients of the hotel occupy individual rooms, they constitute the public according to the meaning of Section L.122-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code, as construed in the light of the 2001/29/CE Directive (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the Information Society). The hotel that made television available to its clients enabling them to view television programmes, engaged in an act of communication of the works to the public subject to the authorisation of the authors, and was therefore obliged to pay the fees relating to the broadcasting.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Les hôtels sont soumis au paiement de redevances à la SACEM

2010-03-28T21:45:00.002+02:00

Cass. 1re civ., 14 janv. 2010, n° 08-16.022

Dans un arrêt du 14 janvier 2010, la Cour de cassation confirme la condamnation d’une société exploitant un hôtel au paiement de redevances de droits d’auteur dues au titre de la diffusion de programmes audiovisuels contenant des œuvres musicales relevant du répertoire de la SACEM.

La Cour estime en effet que les clients de l'hôtel, bien qu'occupant les chambres individuelles à titre privé, constituaient un public, au sens de l'article L. 122-2 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle tel qu'interprété à la lumière de la directive de 2001/29/CE (sur l'harmonisation de certains aspects du droit d'auteur et des droits voisins dans la société de l'information). Ainsi, l'hôtelier qui mettait à la disposition de ses clients, hébergés dans les chambres de son établissement, un poste de télévision au moyen duquel était distribué le signal permettant la réception, par ces clients, des programmes de télédiffusion, se livrait à un acte de communication au public soumis à autorisation des auteurs et partant, au paiement de la redevance y afférente.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

A Draft Bill On Online Gambling

2009-10-20T20:39:00.000+02:00

Official Journal AN, n° 348, 13 October 2009; Lamyline Reflex, L. Costes

On 13 October 2009, the French Deputies voted a draft bill on “competition and regulation in the field of oneline games played for money and games of chance”.

The aim of the Government is to control online gambling, which is currently illegal, but is in fact widespread. The ARJEL will be created (Authority for the regulation of online gambling), an independent agency in charge of granting licenses to the operators of online games.

In return for this renewable license, the websites will have to comply with specifications. Moreover, the sanctions against illegal websites will be more severe (up to 3 years imprisonment and fines of up to 45.000 Euros).

The Senate should examine this draft bill between the end of November and the beginning of December 2009.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

A Decree Sets Out The 9 French Courts Specialised In Intellectual Property

2009-10-12T22:27:00.005+02:00

www.legalis.net

The Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights was implemented in French law by the Law of 29 October 2007 on the fight against infringement and by the Law of 4 August 2008 on the modernisation of the economy. The aim of these acts is in particular to reinforce the body of law protecting intellectual property creations, to create a right to information for intellectual property owners and to reinforce provisional and precautionary measures.

The new law provides for a limited number of courts to specialise in the enforcement of intellectual property: litigation relating to the application of intellectual property rules may only be brought before specific High Courts of First Instance (‘Tribunaux de Grande Instance’).

A Decree dated 9 October 2009, published in the Official Journal on 11 October, designates the 9 High Courts of First Instance (amongst the 181 existing High Courts) that now have exclusive jurisdiction for cases relating to copyright, designs and models, trade marks and appellations of origin: Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Nanterre, Nancy, Paris, Rennes and Fort-de-France.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

YouTube Is A Hosting Provider, Not A Publisher

2009-10-12T12:29:00.001+02:00

High Court of First Instance of Paris (3rd Chamber), 22 September 2009, ADAMI c/ Société YouTube, RLDI 2009/53, L. Costes

The High Court of First Instance of Paris ruled that YouTube is a hosting provider under the French Act of 21 June 2004 on Confidence in the Digital Environment, and not a publisher.

The claimants, a comic double act, brought a copyright infringement case against YouTube after discovering that some of their videos were reproduced on YouTube’s website.

The Court rejected the claim, considering that no legal text excludes the qualification of hosting provider where a provider intends to broadcast the information that he stocks on his website, indeed more so that the Act on Confidence in the Digital Environment provides that storage must be in order to put the information at the disposal of the public by means of communication services, but the Act does not provide that this must necessarily be done by the service of the user. The Court therefore considers that the fact that videos were broadcasted on its website is not sufficient to consider that YouTube may be held liable for the content put on line and belonging to internet users.

Moreover, the Court ruled that YouTube is not liable in the present case, as YouTube may not be held responsible for not trying to do all it could to avoid the illegal content reappearing on its site (on the “stay down” obligation, see the ruling of the High Court of First Instance of Paris, 19 October 2007, http://copyrightfrance.blogspot.com/2007/11/google-video-held-liable-for-not-doing.html).

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

The Music Website Radioblog Condemned To Pay Over 1 Million Euros In Damages

2009-10-10T21:07:00.000+02:00

High Court of First Instance of Paris (31st Chamber), 3 September 2009, SCPP c/ J.-L. and B. T., www.legalis.net

The High Court of First Instance of Paris has condemned the music website Radioblof.fr for putting at the disposal of the public, on its site, links to recordings, and for permitting its visitors to export the play lists that they had created.

The Court considered that the owners of the site had, by so doing, infringed on the rights of the record producers, and that they had illegally published illegally software manifestly aimed at putting unauthorised protected works at the disposal of the public (Section L.335-2-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code).

The Court sentenced the two owners of the site to pay a fine of ten thousand Euros, with a one year suspended prison sentence.

The damages were calculated on the grounds of the new Section L.331-1-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code, which provides that “In order to set the damages, the Court takes into account the negative economic consequences, including the earnings of the author of the infringement and the moral prejudice caused to the rightholders” (L. n° 2007-1544, 29 October 2007: OJ 30 October 2007, which implements the Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights). The site attracted 800.000 visits daily, which generated a turnover of €403.286 in 2006, and a 686.469 in 2007 through advertising. The Court condemned the owners of the site to refund these sums to the rightholders, i.e. 1.089.755 Euros.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

The French Personal Data Protection Law Confronted With The US Discovery Procedures

2009-10-10T19:34:00.000+02:00

The CNIL, the French personal data controller, explains on its website that it “has found that a growing number of motions are being filed, requiring the disclosure of personal data held, among other, by French subsidiaries of US corporations subject to pre-trial discovery procedures in US litigation cases. It has become frequent to see companies or their foreign subsidiaries forced to turn over copies of the full contents of the hard disks or e-mail boxes of some employees, or even the entire personnel”.

For the whole presentation: www.cnil.fr/english/news-and-events/discovery-case/

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Advertising for Alcohol Authorised on the Internet in France

2009-03-17T10:01:00.000+01:00

Draft Bill No 1210 of the French Parliament

The French deputies adopted a draft bill authorising advertising on the Internet, with certain limitations.

For the time being, the Public Health Code does not allow advertisement for alcohol on a website. Indeed, Article L.3323-2 sets out a restrictive list of types of media on which publicity for alcohol is permitted. In particular, advertising may be carried out in the written press (except for the press intended for youth), through sound broadcasting (a decree sets the radio stations that are authorized to broadcast and at what time), by way of posters, signs and objects in certain shops/stores, in the conditions set by a decree… But the law does not mention websites (see our post http://copyrightfrance.blogspot.com/2008/01/heineken-ordered-to-stop-advertising-on.html

The new law is therefore aimed at adapting the rules to the Internet environment, in order to allow selling and advertising wine over the Internet.

Advertising will not be allowed on websites mainly intended for the young or on the websites of sports clubs and associations. Moreover, the adverts for alcohol must not be “intrusive”, i.e. no spam or pop-ups.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

A Mission To Promote ‘Legal’ Dissemination Of Works On 'Web 2.0'

2009-01-24T10:42:00.003+01:00

Press release, French Prime Minister, 20 January 2009

The French Government commissioned Professor Pierre Sirinelli (University of Paris Sorbonne) to prepare a report on the promotion of cultural works on the web 2.0 while complying with intellectual property rights.

The public uses certain services on the “Web 2.0”, in particular community websites such as YouTube, to illegally broadcast or reproduce audiovisual works and music. However, the Government points out that these services can also be a good opportunity for the dissemination of creative works on the internet, provided that the rights of artists are respected. The report will seek practical solutions against abuse, which should be done in discussion with the cinema, music, audiovisual and internet industries.

The report will cover possible avenues: in particular a charter to be signed by the web 2.0 protagonists, under which they would undertake to choose efficient digital marking technologies and apply them for general use in the medium-term.

The report will also study the technical, financial and legal conditions necessary to create a national registry of protected works, which would be used by right owners to register their works. This would oblige the hosting providers to act in accordance with the data collected.

This could in time reinforce the liability of the hosting providers with respect to the registered works. For the time being, Article 6-I-2 of the French Act on Confidence in the Digital Environment provides for a limitation of the liability of the providers, where the providers are not “aware” of the illegal nature of the activity or content.

An intermediary report is due on 30 April 2009, and the final report on 30 June 2009.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

France: the remuneration for private copying extended to mobile phones

2009-01-15T14:09:00.001+01:00

Decision of the Committee of Article L. 311-5 IPC, 17 December 2008

In France, the authors and performers of works fixed on phonograms or videograms, and the producers of such phonograms or videograms, are entitled to remuneration for private copying, in application of Article L. 311-1 of the Intellectual Property Code (“IPC”).

Article L. 311-4 IPC provides that this remuneration shall be paid by the manufacturer, the importer or the person making an intra-Community acquisition of recording mediums that may be used for reproduction of works for private use, at the time these mediums enter into circulation in France. The amount of the remuneration depends on the type of medium and the recording time it provides.

Pursuant to Article L. 311-5 IPC, the type of medium, the rates of remuneration and the conditions of payment of such remuneration are determined by a Committee (see http://copyrightfrance.blogspot.com/2007/10/france-remuneration-for-private-copying.html.

In a Decision dated 17 December 2008 (Official Journal, 21 December 2008, p. 19670), the Committee of Article L. 311-5 IPC extended the list of recording mediums already subject to remuneration to include mobile phones that are able to play music and show videos. Up to 128 Mo, the remuneration is 0,09 euro; between 5 Go and 8 Go, the remuneration is 5,60 euro; and 8 euro between 10 and 20 Go.

The Commission also decided to lower the rates of certain recording mediums such as audio CDR, CDR-RW, video DVD-R and DVD-RW, memory cards, USB keys and external hard disks, DVD Ram, DVD-R and DVD RW.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

The Sarkozy voodoo doll survives

2009-01-14T14:01:00.003+01:00

Court of Appeal of Paris (14th Chamber, section B), 28 November 2008, www.legalis.net

The French President Nicolas Sarkozy sued the publisher Tear Prod for publishing a book called “Nicolas S. the voodoo handbook”, sold in a box containing a figurine of the President and three needles. The following text was also in the box: “You hate Nicolas S. Because he is too right-wing? (…)”. Sarkozy asked for the products to be withdrawn from sale and for nominal damages (1 euro), in particular on the grounds of Articles 9 (“Everyone has the right to respect for his private life”) and 16 (“Legislation ensures the primacy of the person, prohibits any infringement of the latter's dignity and safeguards the respect of the human being from the outset of life”) of the Civil Code.

In the judgement dated 28 November 2008, the Court of Appeal of Paris decided that the text on the box exceeds the limits authorised by caricature.

The Court, however, refused to ban the product as such a measure would not have been proportional to the damages suffered by the plaintiff, and would have undermined freedom of expression. The Court did grant 1 symbolic euro to the President.

Nevertheless, the Court ordered the publisher to add a warning on the box with the following text: “It has been ruled that the incitation of the reader to prick the doll that is enclosed with this book, using the needles that are furnished in the box, is an action that suggests physical pain, even if it is symbolic, and so infringes on Mr S.’ dignity”.

The publicity that came from this trial turned the voodoo doll in question into a best-seller, says the publisher…

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

The new objectives of the French INPI

2009-01-13T12:29:00.005+01:00

Press release, 8 January 2009, www.minefe.gouv.fr

The INPI (Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle) is the French government body in charge of granting industrial property titles following applications (trade marks, patents, designs and models).

On 8 January 2009, the French Government and the Director of the INPI signed an agreement setting out the objectives of the INPI for the period from 2009 to 2012.

Based on the previous agreement, that the parties consider as having been satisfactorily performed (period 2004-2008), the present agreement aims at reinforcing the action of the INPI concerning the six following points:

1. To encourage the use of industrial property in order to promote growth through innovation;

2. To improve the service given to the public by reducing the processing time, in particular through electronic procedures;

3. To make access to information easier: all information concerning industrial property (patents, trade marks, models, case law) will be gratuitously put at the disposal of the public on the website www.inpi.fr;

4. To contribute to the improvement of the legal environment at the French, European and international level: the INPI will continue to advise and assist the Government;

5. The INPI will reinforce its role in the fight against infringement and will defend the French positions in the framework of European and international discussions and the ACTA negotiations (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement).

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Dailymotion: the “stay down” obligation confirmed

2009-01-12T12:18:00.001+01:00

President of the High Court of First Instance of Paris, 19 November 2008, Jean-Yves Lafesse / Dailymotion, www.legalis.net

A judgement of the High Court of First Instance of Paris dated 15 April 2008 had ordered the site Dailymotion to cease all broadcast of the content of filmed sketches of the comedian and author Jean-Yves Lafesse contained in 10 DVDs and 5 CDs.

After the ruling, however, it was established that 4 excerpts of the sketches were still available on the Dailymotion site. Jean-Yves Lafesse therefore brought the case before the President of the High Court of Paris, acting as a summary jurisdiction, to have the removal of the litigious works ordered.

The President said that Dailymotion, which is a hosting provider under the French Act of 21 June 2004 on Confidence in the Digital Environment, had knowledge of the illegal nature of the works that were put online on its site after the judgement rendered on 15 April 2008. The President ruled that the authors and producers thus did not have to send Dailymotion a prior formal notice to inform it of the illegal nature of the content put online, since the hosting provider knew all the said sketches and therefore had the obligation to do all it could to ensure that the works in question remain inaccessible on its site.

In a decision dated 19 October 2007, the High Court of First Instance of Paris had already ruled that once the hosting providers have been notified of illegal content, they are obliged to make sure that it does not reappear on their site. This places them in a difficult situation after notification, as they have a “stay down” obligation to meet (see our comment of the ruling http://copyrightfrance.blogspot.com/2007/11/google-video-held-liable-for-not-doing.html).

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Pas d’exception de copie privée pour le «magnétoscope numérique online»

2009-01-12T11:59:00.003+01:00

Commentaire TGI de Paris (ord. réf.) 6 août 2008, Métropole Télévision et a. c/ Wizzgo

Publié dans LÉGIPRESSE N° 256 - Novembre2008

Dans l’environnement analogique, la question de la licéité des magnétoscopes s’était posée aux Etats-Unis dans l’affaire Betamax (District Central de Californie, 2 octobre 1979, et Cour Suprême des Etats-Unis, 1984, Walt Disney c./ Sony Corp., 464 US 417 - v. V. Nabhan, «Quelques aspects des problèmes juridiques posés par la reproduction : L’affaire Betamax», RIDA av. 1981, n° 108, 3). Selon les sociétés Universal City Studios et Walt Disney, les enregistrements de programmes télévisuels effectués par un particulier dans son domicile privé constituaient des actes de contrefaçon directe, et le fabricant des appareils Betamax commettait donc des actes de contrefaçon indirects (contributory infringement). Les magnétoscopes avaient été jugés licites notamment parce qu’ils étaient largement utilisés par le public afin de visionner les programmes de télévision à un moment différé (time-shifting), ce qui accroît l’audience des titulaires de droits sans leur nuire.

En mai 2008, la société Wizzgo a lancé un service appelé «magnétoscope numérique online», qu’elle décrit sur son site comme un logiciel qui, une fois téléchargé, «permet d’enregistrer gratuitement les programmes TV de la TNT (Télévision numérique terrestre), via internet» (www.wizzgo.com). Wizzgo présente à l’utilisateur un guide de programmes personnalisable ; l’utilisateur choisit les programmes et Wizzgo procède à l’enregistrement intégral du programme commandé et met l’enregistrement à disposition de l’utilisateur via internet une heure après la fin de la diffusion. L’utilisateur peut ensuite conserver et visionner le fichier transmis autant de fois qu’il le souhaite et ce sur tous supports numériques. Ce que propose Wizzgo n’est donc pas un simple magnétoscope numérique, mais un véritable service de copie.

Les sociétés Métropole Télévision et EDI TV, qui exploitent les chaînes de télévision M6 et W9, accessibles en particulier par la TNT, et la société M6 Web, laquelle exploite un service gratuit dit de télévision de rattrapage accessible une heure après la diffusion d’un programme sur internet pendant un délai de un à quinze jours, ont introduit une action en référé devant le Tribunal de grande instance de Paris. Selon les demanderesses, le service porte atteinte aux droits qu’elles disposent sur les œuvres et programmes qu’elles produisent. Elles ont formé des demandes de mesures d’interdiction, de communication de pièces destinées à établir le préjudice et d’indemnisations provisionnelles.

La défense de la société Wizzgo est principalement fondée sur la «neutralité» de son système, qui ne serait qu’une plate-forme technologique mise à la disposition des utilisateurs, «un service gratuit de magnétoscope numérique permettant l’enregistrement des programmes des chaînes gratuites de la TNT». Selon elle, dans la mesure où la fonctionnalité offerte à l’utilisateur consiste en la programmation à distance de ses enregistrements, et où l’enregistrement est intégral (incluant génériques et coupures publicitaires), la copie est faite chez le particulier pour son usage privé, comme avec un magnétoscope classique. Son intervention se limiterait donc à la mise à disposition d’une plate-forme technologique qui génère, du côté de Wizzgo, une simple copie transitoire conforme aux prévisions de l’article L. 122-5 6° CPI, et, du côté de l’utilisateur, une copie privée autorisée par l’article L. 122-5 2° CPI.

L’ordonnance de référé du 6 août 2008, qui relève que le service en cause se caractérise par une activité éludant toute rétribution des droits de propriété intellectuelle et qui se rémunère sur la publicité, procède à une analyse essentiellement économique du service pour rejeter les principaux arguments de Wizzgo.

Selon l’ordonnance, l’exception de copie privée, dérogatoire au droit de reproduction, et donc d’interprétation stricte, est par définition sans valeur économique. Or, le service n’est pas «de l’ordre du don» mais bien économique. La décision précise qu’il est interdit de «s’approprier une richesse économique à partir d’un service de copie d’œuvres ou de programmes audiovisuels qui se soustrait à la rémunération des titulaires des droits de propriété intellectuelle». L’exception de copie privée n’est donc pas applicable, et le service est ainsi manifestement illicite.

Pour autant, la gratuité, ou l’absence de profit, n’est pas une condition directement posée par l’article 122-5 2° CPI, qui dispose que l’auteur ne peut interdire «les copies ou reproductions strictement réservées à l’usage privée du copiste et non destinées à une utilisation collective». C’est cette exigence simple d’unicité de personne entre le «copiste» et l’utilisateur qui prend selon nous tout son sens dans la présente décision, tant il semble évident que cette condition n’est pas remplie.

En ce sens, les demanderesses ont fait valoir la jurisprudence établie en matière d’officines de reprographie et de magasins de duplication de CD. La Cour de cassation, dans l’affaire Rannou-Graphie, avait estimé que le copiste économique est celui qui, détenant le matériel nécessaire à la confection des copies, «exploite ce matériel en le mettant à la disposition de ses clients» (Cass. 1re civ., 7 mars 1984, RIDA n° 121, 151) ; le copiste économique (le magasin) et l’utilisateur de la copie (le client) n’étant pas la même personne, les conditions de l’exception n’étaient pas remplies (A. Lucas, «Le droit d’auteur français à l’épreuve de la reprographie», JCP 1990, I, n° 13, 3448). Plusieurs décisions ont, à la suite de Rannou-Graphie, clarifié la notion de « copiste économique » (P. Masseron, «Le droit de reproduction par reprographie appliqué aux copies-services et aux entreprises de reprographie», Legipresse n° 161, II, 59), en précisant qu’il ne peut y avoir copie privée en cas d’usage commercial (CA Toulouse, 20 mai 1997, RIDA n° 175, 323 et CA Paris, 25 juin 1997, D. Aff. 1997, n° 29, chr. 936. TGI Valence, 2 juil. 1999, RIDA n° 183 ; TGI Clermont-Ferrand, 27 oct. 1999, Legipresse n° 168, 8. Cf. également TGI Montpellier, 24 septembre 1999, Legipresse n° 169, I, 24, condamnant au titre de la contrefaçon la reproduction d’œuvres en format MP3 circulant illégalement sur internet aux fins de graver et de commercialiser des compilations sur CD Rom). Le Cour d’appel de Grenoble a ainsi estimé que l’article L. 122-5 2° exige que «le copiste réalisant matériellement la copie avec du matériel dont il a la possession juridique et matérielle chez lui et l’utilisateur futur soient une seule et même personne physique» (CA Grenoble, 18 janvier 2001, RIDA n° 189, 366, note A. Kéréver ). Une telle définition a semble-t-il le mérite de ne pas condamner les magnétoscopes numériques programmables que l’on trouve actuellement dans les foyers français.

On peut cependant considérer que le juge des référés, qui concède que le service litigieux «suppose l’utilisation coordonnée des moyens techniques de la société et de l’utilisateur», définit indirectement Wizzgo comme le copiste économique, à travers l’analyse des aspects économiques de son activité. En tout état de cause, c’est essentiellement l’absence de «neutralité» qui semble le mieux caractériser ce service dit de magnétoscope numérique en ligne, qui n’est précisément pas un simple magnétoscope mais un véritable service de copie à distance, le prestataire agissant comme le copiste économique.

Par ailleurs, l’argument fondé sur l’article L. 122-5 6° CPI pouvait difficilement être reçu. Cet article, qui résulte de la transposition de l’article 5 de la directive du 22 mai 2001 sur le droit d’auteur dans la société de l’information, prévoit en effet que constitue une exception au droit d’auteur «La reproduction provisoire présentant un caractère transitoire ou accessoire, lorsqu’elle est une partie intégrante et essentielle d’un procédé technique et qu’elle a pour unique objet de permettre l’utilisation licite de l’œuvre ou sa transmission entre tiers par la voie d’un réseau faisant appel à un intermédiaire ; toutefois, cette reproduction provisoire (…) ne doit pas avoir de valeur économique propre». Il résulte de la présentation que fait Wizzgo de son service que la reproduction réalisée n’est pas provisoire, et ce même en se plaçant artificiellement uniquement du côté du prestataire, puisque ce dernier réalise une copie qu’il envoie dans un fichier crypté par internet à l’utilisateur, qui peut ensuite conserver et lire ce fichier sur tous formats numériques. En outre, le service a bien une valeur économique, ainsi que cela est souligné par l’ordonnance. Enfin, l’objet unique de l’utilisation n’est pas licite, puisque l’exception de copie privée est écartée.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Employers In France May Inspect Employees’ Internet Connexions

2008-08-13T23:46:00.004+02:00

Cour de Cassation (Social Chamber), 9 July 2008, Franck L. / Entreprise Martin, www.legalis.net

In this case, a company dismissed an employee on the grounds of a serious fault, after inspecting his computer and discovering that the employee had abusively consulted Internet websites for his personal use. As the inspection took place in his absence, the employee brought the case before the labour Court (‘Conseil de Prud’hommes’), claiming that his employee had infringed on his private life.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the dismissal was justified on the grounds of a serious fault.

The employee appealed to the Cour de Cassation (the French Supreme Court) claiming that in application of Articles 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (on the right to respect for private and family life), 9 of the Civil Code (on privacy) and L.120-2 of the Labour Code (on privacy at work; now codified at Article L. 1121-1), an employee is entitled to respect for his private life at his workplace, which obliges the employee to respect the secrecy of his communications. Therefore, the appellant considered that the employee could not inspect his computer without violating this fundamental liberty.

The employee further argued that, in any event, an employer is only entitled to look for the consulted Internet sites in the presence of the employee.

The French Cour de Cassation rejected these arguments, ruling that an employee’s connexions to Internet sites during his working hours, using a computer put at his disposal for the performance of his work, are presumed to be of a professional nature. An employer may therefore inspect these connexions in order to identify them, out of the employee’s presence.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

The Domain Name ‘elitemodelmanagement.eu’ Must Be Transferred To Elite

2008-05-17T11:43:00.005+02:00

High Court of First Instance of Paris, Summary Order, 18 April 2008, Elite Model Management / P. D., World Scouting Model

A summary order of the High Court of First Instance of Paris dated 18 April 2008 ordered the transfer of the domain name ‘elitemodelmanagement.eu’ to Elite Model Management, the famous model agency established in France in 1972. The order also authorised the notification of the decision to Eurid, the EU association in charge of the registration of the .eu domain names, and to ELB Multimedia, the registration body.

The President of the Court ruled that ‘Elite’ is a well-known trademark under Article L.713-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code, which provides that: “Any person who uses a mark enjoying repute for goods or services that are not similar to those designated in the registration shall be liable under civil law if such use is likely to cause a prejudice to the owner of the mark or if such use constitutes unjustified exploitation of the mark.”

However, whereas Elite Model Management claimed 75.000 Euros damages for the illegal use of its trademark, the President only granted 1.000 Euros, since Elite neither explained nor brought evidence as to the prejudice it had suffered, for example, by providing evidence relating to the traffic on the websites of the defendants.

In previous cases, Elite Model Management had already obtained the transfer of the domain names ‘elite-models.org’, ‘elitemodel.org’ and ‘elitemodel.cc’.

http://www.legalis.net

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

RSS Feeds and Liability Under French Law

2008-05-02T14:59:00.008+02:00

RSS (or Really Simple Syndication) is a family of Web feed formats used to publish frequently updated content. This format can be particularly useful for blog entries, news headlines or podcasts, because the feed is permanently updated and the latest content is automatically displayed.

An RSS file or document usually contains the title of the news, a short description or a summary and a hyperlink to an associated website which hosts the article.

The visitors interested in that content can click on the hyperlink. They will then be redirected and have access to the full text on the main website which hosts the news. Thus, with the RSS feeds, a website is able to broadcast its content easily and can attract new Internet users.

To read the RSS content, the user needs software called “RSS reader” or “feed reader”. The user subscribes to a feed by entering the feed's link into the reader, or by clicking an RSS icon in a browser that initiates the subscription process (The definition of RSS can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS). The RSS feeds are part of what it currently called Web 2.0. They are widespread and appreciated by webmasters.

However, the automatic nature of the RSS format is not always a good thing for the user, nor is the use of the RSS feeds risk-free. Indeed, a hyperlink can lead to an article which violates the law. News often deals with the private life of celebrities, and Internet makes that kind of infringement even more visible. Therefore, can a webmaster be liable for an RSS feed which violates the law, even though the content is automatically displayed and comes from another website?

The question has been submitted to the French Courts very recently. Before examining the rulings, we can quickly sum up the applicable legislation.

The main issue concerns the status of the user who has subscribed to the RSS feeds. Is he a hosting provider or a publisher?

If he is a hosting provider, he will then be liable on the grounds of the article 6-I-2 of the French Act on Confidence in the Digital Environment, adopted on 21 June 2004. This article provides that a hosting provider may not be held liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service if he is unaware of illegal content, and if having knowledge of such content, he has immediately acted to remove it or to disable access to the information.

On the contrary, if he is a publisher, he will then be liable on the grounds of the article 6-III-1 of the same Act which refers either to tort law (that is to say Article 1382 of the French Civil Code) or to the Freedom of the Press Act adopted on 29 July 1881, if the violation of the law is a press offence.

In other words, if the user of the RSS feeds is a hosting provider, he is only liable under certain circumstances. If he is a publisher, he will be liable for his acts if they cause damage to another party.

Three cases concerning RSS feeds have been tried so far.

First, a summary judgement issued by the High Court of First Instance of Nanterre, on 28 February 2008 ( http://www.juriscom.net/documents/tginanterre20080228.pdf; S. Rouja, «Responsabilité pour les flux RSS, la prudence est de mise !», http://www.juriscom.net/actu/visu.php?ID=1032). In this case, a hyperlink on the website “lespipoles.com” referred to an article published on the website “gala.fr” about a love story between a French movie director and an American actress. The French director sued the owner of the domain name, Mr D.

According to the plaintiff, Mr D. had intentionally decided to subscribe to the RSS feed and to create a link referring to a specific website: “gala.fr”. Therefore, he had the status of publisher.

The respondent argued that the website only gathers news headlines collected from other websites. Those headlines are displayed automatically and he does not check them before they appear on the screen. That is to say that he has no control over the content. He is only a hosting provider, according to Article 6-I-2 of the French Act on Confidence in the Digital Environment. Consequently, he argued that the plaintiff should rather have written to him and asked for the removal of the links than bringing an action before Court, as provided in the Act.

In this case, the Court ruled that Mr D. had the status of publisher because he had subscribed to a RSS feed. Furthermore, his website deals with a very specific theme (the private life of famous people) and the links were organized in a specific manner.

The second decision was issued by the same Court, on 7 March 2008 ( http://www.juriscom.net/documents/tginanterre20080307.pdf). The situation was almost the same as the previous one. The action was brought before the Court by the same plaintiff, but this time the respondent was the website “wikio.fr”. The judges declared that they were not competent for this litigation because the respondent, owner of the domain name, was not appointed by the legal mentions on the website as the hosting provider, the publisher or the webmaster. Therefore the plaintiff decided to sue Wikio directly (M. Rees, “Agrégateurs de flux RSS : Wikio.fr une nouvelle fois attaqué”, http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/43143-wikio-olivier-dahan-flux-RSS.htm ).

Finally, a very recent summary judgment was issued by the President of the High Court of First Instance of Paris, on 26 March 2008 (most commonly known as the “Fuzz” case, http://www.juriscom.net/documents/tginanterre20080307.pdf). In this case, again, a website was hosting a link concerning the private life of a French actor. The President adopted the same reasoning as in the first case. He ruled that the respondent acted as a publisher by deliberately selecting the websites and organizing the links in a specific way. He condemned him for infringement of private life on the grounds of Article 9 of the French Civil Code. The webmaster has decided to lodge an appeal.

For the time being, any user of RSS feeds is liable for the content of the news which appears on his website, even if the whole text is hosted on another website.

These decisions have not been well received by the webmasters, though they have one positive aspect: they illustrate the uncertainty about the notion of publishing in French law ( http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/42436-LCEN-digg-like.htm). Some authors consider that such decisions question the acronym RSS (really simple syndication) and others even think that they threaten the French Web 2.0 (M. Rees, «Le web 2.0 français menacé? », http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/42403-fuzz-acteur-presse-citron-LCEN.htm).

FRANCOIS KAWACIW

www.bradspitz.com

La spécialisation des juridictions : concentrer d’abord, réfléchir après

2008-03-13T09:34:00.007+01:00

Editorial publié dans La Lettre des Juristes d'Affaires (LJA) du 10 mars 2008

La spécialisation des juridictions a été renforcée dans deux domaines importants et d’une grande technicité : le droit de la concurrence et la propriété intellectuelle. S’agissant du droit de la concurrence, la loi NRE avait attribué les litiges relatifs aux articles L.420-1 à L.420-5 du Code de commerce et 81 et 82 du Traité CE aux tribunaux de grande instance et tribunaux de commerce de 8 villes désignés dans un décret entré en vigueur le 1er janvier 2006. En matière de propriété intellectuelle, la loi sur la lutte contre la contrefaçon de 2007 a prévu une spécialisation des tribunaux de grande instance. Le décret qui désignera les tribunaux compétents est attendu.

Si les raisons ayant inspiré ces spécialisations sont louables –il s’agit notamment de faire de la France une place de droit efficace et attractive, avec une justice d’excellence et hautement spécialisée–, leur réussite dépend non seulement des moyens qui seront mis en œuvre (formation des juges, réorganisation interne, création de pôles de propriété intellectuelle, stabilisation des magistrats…), mais aussi, en amont, de la cohérence des textes instituant la spécialisation. Or, on est frappé par les difficultés d’ordre procédural laissées en suspens, notamment lorsque la compétence spéciale est invoquée par voie d’exception ou dans le cadre de procédures complexes.

On peut ainsi se demander si, en matière de concurrence, lorsqu’une action sera introduite sur un double fondement devant un tribunal non visé par le décret, et dans le cas où le défendeur soulèverait l’exception d’incompétence, il devra être fait application de l’adage selon lequel l’accessoire suit le principal (comme cela a été fait récemment par le Tribunal de commerce de Nanterre). Cette solution permettrait à la juridiction initialement saisie de conserver l’affaire et d’éviter une instrumentalisation des nouvelles règles à des fins dilatoires. Doit-on au contraire, de manière plus cohérente, appliquer la règle selon laquelle les exceptions s’interprètent strictement, dans la mesure où les règles instituant la spécialisation dérogent au droit commun ?

En tout état de cause, lorsqu’une affaire est introduite devant un tribunal qui n’est pas visé par le décret, et si le défendeur ne soulève pas in limine litis l’incompétence, il semblerait que l’affaire doive rester devant cette juridiction. La Cour d’appel de Paris, devenue juridiction unique d’appel à compétence nationale, et qui a donc désormais un rôle unificateur dans l’application des principes du droit de la concurrence, verra alors, semble-t-il, lui échapper les affaires traitées (à tort ?) par les juridictions non spécialisées de première instance.

La nouvelle loi sur propriété intellectuelle pose également des questions de cohérence. Alors que la volonté du législateur était de transférer à un petit nombre de TGI, à l’exclusion des tribunaux de commerce, les contentieux pour tous les droits de propriété intellectuelle, s’agissant du droit d’auteur, la loi a limité le nombre de TGI, tout en maintenant la compétence de l’ensemble des tribunaux de commerce (l’art. L.331-1 al. 1 CPI n’est pas abrogé). Doit-on considérer qu’il s’agit d’un oubli, et exclure la compétence des tribunaux de commerce ? Ou a-t-on considéré que le droit d’auteur peut être appliqué par n’importe juge consulaire, alors que le magistrat professionnel doit lui être spécialisé ? Par ailleurs, la nouvelle loi ne donne pas de précision s’agissant de la situation dans laquelle une même affaire mêlera, comme c’est souvent le cas, droit d’auteur et droit des dessins et modèles.

Il est à craindre que tant qu’il n’aura pas corrigé ses incohérences, le législateur n’atteigne pas le but poursuivi.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Google Adwords Condemned Again For Trademark Infringement

2008-02-14T10:28:00.001+01:00

Court of Appeal of Paris (4th Chamber, Section B), 1 February 2008, De Dietrich, Electrolux, and others v. Google France and Google Inc.

Google Inc is incorporated in the US and exploits a programme called Adwords, which displays banner advertisements (‘commercial links’) when a particular search term is entered in the Google search engine. Google France was incorporated in France in 2002.

GIFAM, a trade association in the field of household equipment, and the holders of trademarks (such as De Dietrich, Electrolux, Hoover, etc…), brought an action on the grounds of trademark infringement against Google Inc and Google France, which was dismissed by the High Court of First Instance of Paris (12 July 2006, GIFAM and others v. Google France).

The plaintiffs argued that the Adwords system infringes on their trademarks as it uses a keyword generator and broadcasts advertisements that may lead the public to believe that the advertisers are related to the companies who own the trademarks. Moreover, they claimed that the Google companies infringed on their rights to their corporate names and their domain names, and committed acts of misleading advertising by using ‘commercial links’ and carrying out classifications of the trademarks that lead consumers to misrepresent the relationships that the companies may have with the sites of the advertisers who use their trademarks illegally. They lodged an appeal against the High Court’s judgement that had dismissed their action.

The Court of Appeal, in its decision dated 1 February 2008, reversed the High Court’s judgement, stating that the Adwords system is a public service that is ‘contextual advertising’, in which the Google companies play an active role. They may not, therefore, be considered as hosting providers in the meaning of Article 6 the French Act of 21 June 2004 on Confidence in the Digital Environment (which implemented the Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services - ‘Directive on electronic commerce’).

The Court considered that with the Adwords service, Google acts as an advertising provider, and that a large part of its profits is related to the frequency with which the advertiser’s website is consulted. Furthermore, Google is responsible for the trademarks appearing with the products or services in question on the screens of the Internet users.

The Court rejected Google’s arguments. Google’s defence was that the service works in a purely statistical way, and solely at the request of the advertisers. Indeed, the Court considered that it was Google who put this system in place, that it knew how it worked, and that it offered its use to the advertisers. Moreover, the fact that the advertisers were warned by announcements displayed on the pages of the Adwords system is irrelevant since Google chose to reproduce the trademarks.

The Court of Appeal therefore ruled that Google’s use of the trademarks breaches Article L.713-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code, which prohibits the reproduction, use or affixing of a trademark, or the use of a reproduced trademark for goods or services that are identical to those designated in the registration. The Court underlined that Google did not challenge the fact that the trademarks were identical to those reproduced in the lists provided by the keyword generator.

This is not the first French decision condemning the Google Adwords system. In a decision dated 6 December 2007, the Court of Appeal of Aix en Provence ruled that the use of the keyword ‘Remote-Anything’ (a registered trademark) in connection with the same types of products as those protected by the trademark, without the authorisation of the owner of the trademark, is act of infringement of the said trademark. The Court underlined that Google Inc and Google France had played an active role, and could not be considered as mere ‘technical providers’. Since they displayed advertising messages in the form of commercial links for advertisers who paid them for these services, they were to be held liable under trademark law. In particular, they approved the chosen keywords (a choice which is made by the advertisers with Google’s assistance) and were supposed to verify that the commercial links did not infringe any rights of third parties. Moreover, they could not allege that it was impossible to carry out such verification beforehand for supposedly material, legal and economic reasons. The Court added that even if it had been established that it was impossible to carry out such verification, Google Inc and Google France had to either simply abandon this activity or bear the consequences attached (see our blog: http://copyrightfrance.blogspot.com/2008/01/google-adwords-condemned-for-trademark.html).

http://www.juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=1021

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Google Adwords Condemned for Trademark Infringement

2008-01-24T09:34:00.002+01:00

Court of Appeal of Aix en Provence (2nd Chamber), 6 December 2007, TWD Industries v. Google France, Google Inc

Google Inc is incorporated in the US and exploits a programme called Adwords, which displays banner advertisements (‘commercial links’) when a particular search item is entered in the Google search engine. This activity generates a major part of a search engine’s income. Google France was incorporated in France in 2002.

TWD commercialises a software product under the name Remote-Anything, a name that it registered as a trademark in 2005. TWD Industries sued Google Inc and Google France, claiming that when a research is carried out with the keywords ‘Remote-Anything’, commercial links are displayed which send the users to websites of companies that commercialise identical and competing products. The High Court of First Instance of Nice dismissed TWD Industries’ action. They then lodged an appeal.

The Court of Appeal of Aix en Provence first states that Articles L.713-2 and L.713-3 of the Intellectual Property Code prohibit 1- the reproduction, use or affixing of a mark or the use of a reproduced mark for goods or services that are identical to those designated in the registration, and 2- if there is a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public, a) The reproduction, use or affixing of a mark or use of a reproduced mark for goods or services that are similar to those designated in the registration, and b) The imitation of a mark and the use of an imitated mark for goods or services that are identical or similar to those designated in the registration. The Court ruled that the use of the keyword ‘Remote-Anything’ in connection with the same types of products as those protected by the trademark, without the authorisation of the owner of the trademark, is an act of infringement of the said trademark.

In the present case, the Court of Appeal underlined that Google Inc and Google France played an active role, and may not be considered as mere ‘technical providers’. As they displayed advertisement messages in the form of commercial links for advertisers who pay them for these services, they may be held liable under trademark law. In particular, they may be held liable, as they approved the chosen keywords (a choice which is made by the advertisers with Google’s assistance). They are supposed to verify that the commercial links do not infringe any rights of third parties. Moreover, they may not allege that prior verification is impossible for supposedly material, legal and economic reasons. The Court adds that even if it were established that it is impossible to verify, Google Inc and Google France would have to either simply abandon this activity or bear the consequences.

In fact the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision, ruling that Google Inc and Google France had committed acts of infringement of the trademark in question. The Google companies were condemned to pay 15.000 euros in damages to TWD Industries.

http://www.legalis.net

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Amazon.fr Condemned For Selling Books Without A Delivery Charge

2008-01-21T10:18:00.000+01:00

High Court of First Instance of Versailles (3rd Chamber), 11 December 2007, Syndicat de la Librairie Française v. Société Amazon.fr (obs. J.-B. Auroux, in RLDI 2008/33, n° 1118)

The 10th August 1981 Act (‘Loi Lang’) obliges book retailers to fix the sale price of books at a price between 95 and 100% of the price set by the publisher or the importer. This means that a bookstore may not reduce the price of books by more than 5%. The French Association of bookstores took action against Amazon.fr (Amazon in France) for selling books on its website without a delivery charge, and for having offered gift tokens to its clients for opening an account. The Association claimed that Amazon.fr infringed the 1981 Act and that its behaviour constituted unfair competition.

The Association argued that the gift tokens constitute an illegal sale with incentives to purchase as well as a rebate exceeding the maximum 5% reduction authorised by the law, and unfair competition for the independent bookstores that comply with the legislation. The Association also claimed that free delivery constitutes an illegal sale with incentives to purchase, and possibly a sale at a loss, and in any event unfair competition.

Amazon.fr argued that it had stopped offering gift tokens in 2003 in order to appease the situation, and that free delivery does not constitute an incentive, but is a normal way to commercialise its products, the very essence of the attractiveness of its business.

The High Court of First Instance of Versailles considered that the 5 euro gift tokens, offered to welcome new clients buying goods for an amount of at least 10 euros, constitutes a price rebate exceeding the rebate authorised by the law, where the purchase price amounts to less than 100 euros.

With regard to the free delivery, the Court recalls that Article L.121-35 of the Consumer Code provides that ‘All sales or offers for sale of goods or any provision or offer to provide services made to consumers and giving entitlement, free of charge, immediately or at the end of a fixed period, to a bonus consisting of products, goods or services, if these are identical to those forming the subject of the sale or the service provision, are prohibited.’ The Court considered that the free delivery generates a sale at a loss for the books sold at a low price, and constitutes unfair competition for traditional bookstores. The Court therefore ruled that the operation is illegal, and ordered Amazon.fr to cease selling the books without a delivery charge, with a 1.000 euros daily fine for delay in performance. Amazon.fr was also condemned to pay the Association damages.

In an email sent to its clients, Amazon.fr explained that the irony of this condemnation is that the aim of the 1981 Act is to preserve cultural diversity and to give the bookstores the means to offer a wide selection of books, and not only best-sellers. Amazon.fr also notes that France is the only country in the world in which Amazon has been condemned for such practices. It announced that it has lodged an appeal against the judgement and that in the meantime it would continue to deliver books free of charge. It has also put a petition and a newsgroup on the matter online.

BRAD SPITZ
www.en.bradspitz.com

Recording Agreements: the Obligation to Promote the Albums Released

2008-01-20T18:30:00.000+01:00

Cour de cassation (Social Chamber), 26 September 2007, n°06/42.575 (obs. Costes L., in RLDI 2008/33, n°1119)

In application of a recording agreement, the two members of a French band called ‘Native’ had granted the exclusive rights to their recorded performances to BMG France, with an obligation to record at least three albums.

The first two records, released in 1993 and 1997, were successful. One of the members of the band recorded a third album alone. Released in 2002, this album was a commercial failure. The artist brought the case before the labour court, competent to handle litigation relating to recording agreements concluded between record companies and performers. The labour court condemned the record company to the payment of 200.000 euros damages for breach of contract, considering that it had not carried out the necessary promotion when the album was released.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, on the basis that the record company had not accompanied the release of the album with a ‘new promotion’ and that the record was released in abnormal conditions. BMG France brought the case before the Cour de Cassation, the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters.

BMG France claimed that a record company, which has to perform the recording agreement in good faith, has no obligation to guarantee a result regarding the conditions in which the record is released. BMG France argued that the promotion of a record depends on whether the radio and television stations decide to broadcast the record or not. It also argued that the artist had on several occasions refused to record a single that was supposed to back the promotion of the album, thus violating its contractual obligations.

In its decision dated 26 September 2007, the Supreme Court dismissed BMG France’s arguments. The Court ruled that the Court of Appeal had rightly considered that the record company had not justified the carrying out of a new promotion operation for this third album, apart from one programme on the radio and another on television, whereas this contractual obligation was not disputed.

A record company does not have an obligation to guarantee the success of an album, but has to be able to prove that it used all necessary means to promote the album.

BRAD SPITZ
www.en.bradspitz.com

Heineken Ordered to Stop Advertising on its Website

2008-01-18T08:47:00.001+01:00

High Court of First Instance of Paris, Summary Order, 8 January 2008, ANPAA v. Heineken

The National Association for the Prevention of Alcoholism and Addiction (ANPAA) brought a case before the President of the High Court of First Instance of Paris against Heineken, claiming that the advertisement for its beer on its website www.heineken.fr is illegal. It argued that Article L.3323-2 of the Public Health Code does not allow advertisement for alcohol on a website. Indeed, Article L.3323-2 sets out a restrictive list of types of media on which publicity for alcohol is permitted. In particular, advertising may be carried out in the written press (except for the press intended for youth), through sound broadcasting (a decree sets the radio stations that are authorized to broadcast and at what time), by way of posters, signs and objects in certain shops/stores, in the conditions set by a decree… But the law does not mention websites.

Moreover, the association claimed that, by offering attractive elements on its site, such as games and sound animations, Heineken crossed the boundaries set out by Article L.3323-4 of the Public Health Code, which provides that authorized adverts for alcohol may not mention anything other than factual information, such as the percentage of alcohol, the origin, the name, the ingredients etc.

The President, in his summary order, considered that the advertisement carried out by Heineken through the broadcasting of electronic messages on the website www.heineken.fr, uses a media that is not on the restrictive list provided by Article L.3323-2 of the Public Health Code. He therefore ordered Heineken to remove all messages within 3 weeks following the notification of the decision, with a 3.000 euros daily fine for delay in performance.

This decision could have serious consequences for companies that sell wine and other types of alcohol on their websites. Heineken has lodged an appeal against this summary ruling.

http://www.legalis.net

BRAD SPITZ
www.en.bradspitz.com

The ‘Spiderman’ DVD Packaging is a Work Protected by Copyright

2007-12-24T13:53:00.000+01:00

Court of Appeal of Versailles (12th Chamber), 7 June 2007, n°06/01686 (obs. Costes L., in RLDI 2007/33, n°1100)

In 2002 Gaumont commercialized a DVD of the film Spiderman, in a specially designed package, presented as a limited edition for collectors. The packaging consisted of a wooden box containing a double DVD, a figurine representing Spiderman, a sketch-book…

M. J. created this packaging and Mastery took care of its production and marketing, while MPO was only in charge of manufacturing it. Subsequently, MPO published a photograph of the Spiderman package on its website, on a page dedicated to its ‘packaging creations’. M. J. and Mastery took action against MPO on the grounds of copyright infringement and unfair competition.

MPO argued that under copyright law the litigious packaging was not original, as it was merely a reproduction of boxes that had been drawn by the author of the Spiderman comic strips.

The Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that a package designed and created for a specific product is a work as defined by the Intellectual Property Code and therefore qualifies for copyright protection. The Court condemned MPO for copyright infringement.

BRAD SPITZ
www.en.bradspitz.com

A Newsgroup Defined as Being a Hosting Provider

2007-12-20T10:17:00.000+01:00

Court of Appeal of Versailles (14th Chamber), 12 December 2007, Les Arnaques.com v Editions Régionales de France

Editions Régionales de France (ERF) is a communications agency which specialises in the sales of advertising space and publishing of professional directories. It considered that newsgroups of the website Lesarnaques.com (literally The swindles.com), dedicated to helping consumers air their disputes, contained serious allegations against it.

In a summary proceeding, ERF obtained an order against the company Lesarnaques.com to suspend all reference to ERF on the site. Lesarnaques.com lodged an appeal against the summary order.

The Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that a newsgroup that is used to send messages online, without any prior monitoring, is a hosting provider in the meaning of the French Act of 21 June 2004 on Confidence in the Digital Environment. As such, Lesarnaques.com may be liable under Article 6-1-2 of the French Act of 21 June 2004 on Confidence in the Digital Environment, which provides that the hosting provider is not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service, if the provider did not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information, or if the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge, acted expeditiously to remove the information, or to disable access to it.

However, the Court ruled that under Article 6-I-5 of the Act of 21 June 2004, hosting providers are deemed to have knowledge of the litigious facts if they have been notified of certain elements, in particular the description of the litigious facts and their precise location, and the reasons why the content must be removed, with an explanation of the legal provisions and factual justifications. In the present case, the Court considered that the ERF had not sent the required notifications, and dismissed ERF’s claims.

http://www.legalis.net

BRAD SPITZ
www.en.bradspitz.com

Google liable for hosting a blog

2007-12-18T19:01:00.000+01:00

Court of Appeal of Paris (14th Chamber, Section A), 12 December 2007, Google Inc. v Benetton, Bencom

The American company Google Inc. hosts blogs on the Internet. The Benetton Group and Bencom manufacture and commercialize ready-to-wear clothes. The Benetton Group is the parent company, and Bencom the owner of the group’s trademarks.

Photographs from their catalogues and certain of their trademarks were reproduced by a certain “Angela B.” on two blogs, who claimed that he/she worked for Benetton in order to get women to send photographs of themselves in swimsuits or underwear. One blog was hosted by Microsoft, the other by Google Inc.

Benetton and Bencom first sent formal notices to Angel B.’s email address, which appeared on the blogs. As these notices had no effect, the plaintiffs wrote to Microsoft and Google to ask them to block all access to the blogs. Only Microsoft accepted.

At the beginning of May 2007, Benetton and Bencom brought the case before the President of the High Court of First Instance of Paris. In a summary order dated 29 May 2007, the President ordered Google Inc. to disable all access to the litigious blog, and condemned it to pay provisional damages to the plaintiffs.

On 8 June 2007, Google Inc. lodged an appeal and the litigious blog became inaccessible on either June 6 or June 8.

In its decision dated 12 December 2007, the Court of Appeal of Paris ruled that Google Inc. acted as a hosting provider and not as a publisher. The Court recalls that under the provisions of the Act of 21 June 2004 on Confidence in the Digital Environment, a hosting provider is not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service, if the provider did not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information, or if the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge, acted expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information.

The Court noted that on 3 May 2007, after the summons had been served on Google Inc., the plaintiffs communicated to the defendant the evidence that was intended to be used at the trial. This evidence established the plaintiff’s rights and trademarks and under what conditions the photographs and trademarks had been reproduced.

The Court ruled that Google Inc. had knowledge of the illegal content when it received the plaintiff’s evidence, and that it should have promptly disabled all access to the content, without waiting for the first judge’s ruling. Google Inc. had only removed the blog on June 6 or 8, 2007, and was therefore held liable.

http://www.legalis.net

BRAD SPITZ
www.en.bradspitz.com

A small adds website ordered to screen its content

2007-12-09T12:21:00.001+01:00

Commercial Court of Paris, Summary Order, 31 October 2007, Kenzo and others v DMIS

Several companies of the group LVMH (Christian Dior, Givenchy, Guerlain, Kenzo) brought a case before the President of the Commercial Court of Paris against DMIS, the publisher of the website Vivastreet. This website, specialised in small adds, contained adds published by private individuals for the sale of perfumes outside the plaintiffs’ selective distribution network. The plaintiffs asked the President of the Court, acting as a summary jurisdiction for urgent matters, to order measures to stop these acts.

The plaintiffs acted on the grounds of Articles 6-I-7 of the French Act of 21 June 2004 on Confidence in the Digital Environment, which allows the judge to request the access and hosting providers to implement specific and temporary surveillance of their site, and Article 6-I-8, which provides that the judge may order any measure to prevent or stop damages caused or likely to be caused by the content of an online communication to the public.

In a summary order dated 26 July 2007, the President of the Commercial Court ordered the deletion of the litigious adds (http://www.legalis.net/breves-article.php3?id_article=2070). He also ordered the implementation of an upstream screening system to detect and block adds containing the trademarks of the plaintiffs for a period of six months. The President also ordered the publication of a warning on the home page of the site for one month.

However, a few months later, the plaintiffs discovered that there were still adds containing their trademarks on the same website, and considered that the defendant had not correctly executed the decision. They brought the case before the same Court.

In a summary order dated 31 October 2007, the President maintained his summary injunction concerning the screening and monitoring obligation, even though the defendant argued that it was developing an efficient software due for 15 January 2008 (http://www.legalis.net/jurisprudence-decision.php3?id_article=2074).
The judge also ordered the defendant to publish a warning again.

This decision offers an interesting application of Article 6-I-8 of the Act on Confidence in the Digital Environment, which allows the victim of an illegal content to ask the judicial authority to implement summary measures in order to prevent damages relating to illegal contents. In the Google Video case, the High Court of First Instance of Paris ruled that once notified that there is illegal content on their sites, the hosting providers have a general obligation to monitor their site in order to make sure that the content in question does not reappear on their site (see our post: http://copyrightfrance.blogspot.com/2007/11/google-video-held-liable-for-not-doing.html ). Article 6-I-8 may constitute a better solution, as the judge will order specific measures to be implemented during a specified time frame.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

French high court thumps Google Video

2007-12-06T09:37:00.000+01:00

An interview of Brad Spitz in The Register on the Google Video case:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/05/french_high_court_thumps_google_video/

Google Video held liable for not doing all it could to stop the broadcasting of a film

2007-11-29T08:53:00.000+01:00

High Court of First Instance of Paris (3rd Chamber, 2nd Section), 19 October 2007, Zadig Productions and others v Google Inc, Afa

Zadig Productions is the producer of a documentary called ‘Tranquillity Bay’. When Zadig discovered that its film was accessible on the Google Video website, it sent three formal letters of notice on 13 and 14 April 2006, to Google Inc, an American company incorporated in Delaware. In an email dated 15 April 2006, Google Inc informed Zadig that it had removed access to the documentary in question. However, the film was put on line on the site several times by other Internet users. Each time, the broadcasting was notified to Google Inc, who systematically removed the litigious content. However, Zadig considered that Google Inc had not taken all necessary steps to stop the broadcasting of the film, and sued the American company.

The High Court of First Instance of Paris (‘Tribunal de Grande Instance’) held that Google Inc is a hosting provider, and that as such it may be liable under Article 6-1-2 of the French Act of 21 June 2004 on Confidence in the Digital Environment, which provides that the hosting provider is not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service, if the provider did not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information, or if the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge, acted expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information.

The Court held that, with regard to the first broadcast, Google Inc complied with these provisions by expeditiously removing the film. However, as regards the following broadcasts, the Court considered that since Google Inc had already been notified of the illegal nature of the content, it had the obligation to do everything necessary in order to prevent a further broadcast. The Court ruled that Google Inc did not prove that it had implemented such means, as the technical means that Google Inc alleged it had developed had manifestly been ineffective in the present case. The defendant could not therefore benefit from the liability limitation provided by Article 6-1-2 of the 2006 Act, and was condemned for copyright infringement: 25.000 euros for the violation of the patrimonial rights, and 5.000 euros for the violation of the moral rights of the author.

The crux of the decision is that once the hosting providers have been notified of illegal content, they are obliged to make sure that it does not reappear on their site. This places them in a difficult situation once they have been notified. Indeed, simply removing the notified content will not be enough to benefit from the liability limitation of Article 6-1-2 (the same limitation is provided for in the Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services and in the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA)). Where the hosting provider is informed of the existence of an illegal content, it will either have to implement all necessary means to prevent a further user from putting the same content on line, or be able to prove that effective means were implemented in order to prevent such content being placed on the site. Hosting providers (such as Youtube and Dailymotion) will therefore have to develop technical means capable of searching specific content. Right owners might want to use the notification system for all their content in order to make sure the hosting providers will do the best they can to remove the litigious content as soon as it is put on line, and/or be held liable for copyright infringement if they fail to do so.

Further, the decision concerning the infringement of the moral rights of the author in the present judgement is note worthy. The Court ruled that the paternity right (the right of the author to be identified as such) was violated, as the identification elements of the documentary in question on the service Google Video did not contain any identification relating to the co-authors. Moreover, the Court ruled that Google Inc violated the author’s right of integrity (referred to under UK copyright law as the right to object to derogatory treatment), since the ‘streaming’ means used to broadcast the documentary only allow a very poor quality visualisation (this was already ruled in another decision: High Court of First Instance of Paris, Summary Order, 22 June 2007, see our post: (http://copyrightfrance.blogspot.com/2007/07/dailymotion-hosting-provider-liable-for.html).

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Wikipedia French Case: hosting providers do not have the obligation to monitor content

2007-11-05T09:09:00.000+01:00

High Court of First Instance of Paris, Summary Order, 29 October 2007, Mrs M.B., Mr P.T. and Mr F.D. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc.

Three Frenchmen, who were quoted in the WIKIPEDIA website as being gay, brought action before the President of the High Court of First Instance of Paris, competent for urgent matters. They claimed damages on the grounds of violation of their privacy and defamation.

The Wikimedia Foundation argued that it is not subject to a general obligation to monitor the contents on its site, that it did not have actual knowledge of the litigious words, and that the plaintiffs did not notify the presence of the contents in compliance with the formalities provided for in the French Act of 21 June 2004 on Confidence in the Digital Environment (which implements the EC Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services). The litigious content was removed from the website before the hearings.

In its summary order dated 29 October 2007, the President ruled that the provisions of Article 6-I-2 Act on Confidence in the Digital Environment provide that hosting providers are not liable for the information stored, on condition that the providers did not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information. Moreover, the President held that the provisions of Article 6.I.7 of the same Act do not provide for a general obligation to monitor information on their site, nor an obligation to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activities.

Furthermore, the President ruled that the plaintiffs had not given the Wikimedia Foundation notification of the litigious contents in compliance with the formalities set out in Article 6.I.5 of the Act of 21 June 2004. This article provides that service providers are deemed to have knowledge of the litigious facts if the following elements are notified:
- the date of the notification;
- the name of the person, profession, domicile, nationality, date and place of birth, or, in the case of a legal entity, its form of incorporation, name, registered office;
- the description of the litigious facts and their precise location;
- the reasons why the content must be removed, with an explanation of the legal provisions and factual justifications; and
- a copy of the correspondence sent to the author or publisher of the litigious information or facts, in which the author or publisher is asked to remove or modify the information, or failing that, justification that the author or publisher could not be contacted.

In the present case, the plaintiffs had sent an email, instead of a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. The email in question did not refer to the legal provisions needed by the recipient in order to verify whether the content was manifestly illegal.

http://www.juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=980

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

The new French law on the enforcement of IP rights

2007-11-01T17:08:00.000+01:00

L. n° 2007-1544, 29 October 2007: Official Journal 30 October 2007, p. 17775

The bill on the measures to fight infringement, which implements the Directives 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (see our commentary below ‘The French Senate voted a draft bill to implement the Directive on enforcement of IP rights’, also available at: http://juriscom.net/actu/visu.php?ID=968), was published in the Official Journal (L. n° 2007-1544, 29 October 2007: Official Journal 30 October 2007, p. 17775).

The new law concerns designs, patents, semi-conductors, trademarks and copyright. This law reinforces the protection of intellectual property creations. It introduces accelerated and simplified procedures to bring matters before court, in particular in order to obtain summary orders against the alleged infringer or his intermediaries so as to prevent imminent acts of infringement or to stop such acts. The law also reinforces the measures that can be ordered against infringers, and improves the remedies that can be awarded.

Moreover, the law provides for a limited number of courts to specialise in the enforcement of intellectual property: litigation relating to the application of intellectual property rules may only be brought before specific High Courts of First Instance (‘Tribunaux de Grande Instance’). The text provides that a Decree will set out these courts.

It should also be noted that the legislator reinforces the penal sanctions incurred where the acts of infringement concern products that are dangerous for the health and security of mankind and animals.

Finally, the law sanctions any violation of intellectual property rights, whether they are carried out on a commercial scale or not.

BRAD SPITZ
www.en.bradspitz.com

Copyright versus right to information

2007-10-25T14:38:00.000+02:00

Cour de Cassation (1st Civil Chamber), 2 October 2007, n° 05-14.928

On 9 March 2005, the Court of Appeal of Paris (4th Chamber, Section A) ruled that the publisher Hachette Filipacchi committed acts of infringement in 1998 by reproducing the FIFA trophy on the cover of ‘Onze Mondial’, its French football magazine.

The Court of Appeal held that the copyright exception in Article L.122-5 of the Intellectual Property Code (‘IPC’), which provides that ‘analyses and short quotations justified by the critical, polemic, educational, scientific or informatory nature of the work in which they are incorporated’, was not applicable in this case, since the reproduction did concern the right to information.

Hachette Filipacchi lodged an appeal with the Cour de Cassation (the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters), which confirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgement. The Cour de Cassation considered that the right to information, as provided for in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is limited by other identically protected rights, such as intellectual property rights. As the Court of Appeal noted in its judgement, the reproduction of the trophy did not appear in a document of an informational nature but in a photomontage which symbolically illustrated the victory of the famous football players represented on the cover.

The Cour de Cassation therefore ruled that the litigious reproduction, which exceeded the mere reference to the current event in question, did not contribute to public information, and was therefore an unauthorised act of exploitation of the work.

In the present case, the Cour de Cassation struck a balance between the right to information and the rights of the rightholder. However, it appears from the rulings of the Court of Appeal of Paris and of the Cour de Cassation, that if the magazine had published information on the trophy itself in the same magazine, the reproduction would probably have been authorised by Article L.122-5 IPC, even if the publisher’s aim had only been to make the magazine more attractive (see D. Poracchia, “Trophée sportif, droit à l’information et courtes citations”, in Lamy Droit des Médias et de la Communication). In certain situations, it will be difficult to strike a balance…

BRAD SPITZ
www.en.bradspitz.com

False description of an ‘audio CD’ that cannot be played on certain CD players

2007-10-24T12:32:00.001+02:00

High Court of First Instance of Nanterre (15th Chamber), 31 May 2007, n° 331845026, Ministère public v EMI Music France

EMI Music France commercialised, between October 2002 and August 2003, CDs equipped with anti-copying measures. As these CD’s were commercialised under the name “Audio CD”, while they could not be played on certain CD players, two consumer associations took action against EMI Music France on the grounds of false description in relation to the nature and material qualities of the merchandise.

Indeed, Article L.213-1 of the French Consumer Code punishes anyone, whether or not they are party to the contract, who may have deceived or attempted to deceive the contractor in respect of the nature, species, origin, material qualities, composition or content in terms of useful principles of any merchandise.

The Tribunal de Grande Instance (High Court of First Instance) of Nanterre held that EMI Music France deceived the consumers by knowingly commercialising audio records presented as ‘audio CDs’, whereas these CDs were equipped with anti-copying measures and were therefore not in compliance with the French norm fixing the technical characteristics applicable to audio CDs at the time, and so could not be played on a certain number of CD players, in particular on car CD players.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

France: the remuneration for private copying extended to memory cards, USB keys and external hard disks

2007-10-15T09:23:00.000+02:00

Decision of the Committee of Article L. 311-5 IPC, 9 July 2007

In France, the authors and performers of works fixed on phonograms or videograms, and the producers of such phonograms or videograms, are entitled to remuneration for private copying, in application of Article L. 311-1 of the Intellectual Property Code (“IPC”).

Article L. 311-4 IPC provides that this remuneration shall be paid by the manufacturer, the importer or the person making an intra-Community acquisition of recording mediums that may be used for reproduction of works for private use, at the time these mediums enter into circulation in France. The amount of the remuneration depends on the type of medium and the recording time it provides.

Pursuant to Article L. 311-5 IPC, the type of medium, the rates of remuneration and the conditions of payment of such remuneration are determined by a Committee chaired by a representative of the State and composed, in half, of persons designated by organisations representing the beneficiaries of the right of remuneration, in quarter, of persons designated by the organisations representing the manufacturers or importers of the mediums in question, and in quarter, of persons designated by the organisations representing the consumers.

In a Decision dated 9 July 2007 (Official Journal, 9 September 2007, p. 14860), the Committee of Article L. 311-5 IPC extended the list of recording mediums already subject to remuneration (amongst which Minidisc, audio CDR and CDR-RW, video DVD-R and DVD-RW…) to include memory cards, USB keys and external hard disks. The Commission also reduced the remuneration applicable to blank DVDs (DVD Ram, DVD-R and DVD RW) from 23,40 Euros to 21,70 Euros for 100 Go.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

The French Senate voted a draft bill to implement the Directive on enforcement of IP rights

2007-10-02T18:36:00.000+02:00

On 19 September 2007, the French Senate voted the parliamentary draft bill to fight infringement (‘Projet de loi de lutte contre la contrefaçon’, n° 135, http://ameli.senat.fr/publication_pl/2006-2007/226.html). This draft bill implements the Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The aim of the draft is in particular to reinforce the body of law to protect intellectual property creations, to create a right of information for intellectual property owners and to reinforce provisional and precautionary measures.

Three sets of provisions seem interesting to note.

1) The draft provides for a limited number of courts to specialise in the enforcement of intellectual property: litigation relating to the application of intellectual property rules may only be brought before specific High Courts of First Instance (‘Tribunaux de Grande Instance’). The text provides that a Decree will set out these courts amongst the 181 existing courts.

In the field of competition law, the absence of specialised courts for damages actions appeared to constitute a major procedural obstacle to the effective enforcement of competition law. The Law on the New Economic Regulations (‘Loi sur les Nouvelles Régulations Economiques’ - ‘Loi NRE’) of 15 May 2001 provided for the creation of specialised courts for the enforcement of competition law actions (Law n° 2001-420, published in the French Official Journal of 16 May 2001). Pursuant to Article L.420-7 of the French Commercial Code, as amended by the Loi NRE, litigation relating to the application of the domestic French competition rules contained in Articles L.420-1 to L.420-5 of the Commercial Code and the EC rules contained in Articles 81 and 82 EC Treaty, may only be brought before specific High Courts of First Instance and Commercial Courts (‘Tribunaux de Commerce’). The same idea prevails in the draft bill to fight infringement of intellectual property rights: the specialisation of the courts rationalises the training of the judges in the particular techniques of intellectual property law. These provisions also aim at making French territory an attractive legal jurisdiction. One may observe that for several years now, French procedure law has been tending towards specialisation in intellectual property cases (see for instance Article R. 631-2 of the Intellectual Property Code which designates seven High Courts of First Instance to hear cases relating to patents, utility certificates, supplementary protection certificates and certificates of topographies of semiconductor products).

2) The other interesting provisions concern the aspects that must be taken into account by the judicial authority in order to set the damages. These provisions are close (but not identical) to Article 13 of the Directive 2004/48/EC. The draft provides that to assess the damages, the court shall ‘take into consideration the negative economic consequences, including lost profits, which the injured party has suffered, the profits made by the infringer and the moral prejudice caused to the rightholder by the infringer’. The draft adds: ‘However, the court may, as an alternative, and if claimed by the injured party, set the damages as a lump sum which shall be at least the amount of royalties or fees which would have been due if the infringer had requested authorization to use the intellectual property in question’. Currently, under French law, the damages awarded by the courts must compensate the damages actually suffered and not constitute punitive sanctions. These provisions seem to introduce punitive damages into French intellectual property law. It should however be observed that the courts already tend to increase, sometimes considerably, the amount of such indemnities (see F. Siiriainen, ‘Propriété intellectuelle, préjudice et droit économique’, Colloque du 23 Mars 2001, à la Sorbonne, consacré aux "Sciences juridiques de l'économie? Un défi pour les économistes et juristes européens").

3) Finally, the draft removed the reference to acts carried out ‘on a commercial scale’, as this notion was considered to be dangerously imprecise, and since the courts will, in any case, adapt the sanctions according to the gravity of the infringement in question (see Rapport n° 420 (2006-2007) de M. L. Béteille, http://www.senat.fr/rap/l06-420/l06-420.html). The preamble of the Directive states that the ‘measures provided for in Articles 6(2), 8(1) and 9(2) need to be applied in respect of acts carried out on a commercial scale. This is without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to apply those measures also in respect of other acts’ (point 14).

The National Assembly (equivalent to the UK House of Commons or the US House of Representatives) will examine the draft bill in October 2007.

http://juriscom.net/actu/visu.php?ID=968

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

SMS messages may be used as evidence in court

2007-10-02T14:21:00.000+02:00

Cour de Cassation (Social Chamber), 23 May 2007, SCP L.-A. et autre v Mme L. Y., n° 06-43.209

Ms Y. was dismissed from her employment for having committed a serious fault. She brought the case before the labour court (‘Conseil de prud’hommes’) challenging her dismissal and complaining about sexual harassment.

The Court of Appeal of Anger held that Ms Y. established that she had been harassed and condemned the employer to pay damages. Ms Y. used as evidence a telephone conversation, which was recorded without the knowledge of the person in question –Mr X.–, as well as SMS messages sent to her by Mr X. The employer and Mr X. challenged the admissibility of this means of evidence and appealed to the Cour de Cassation (the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters).

Before the Cour de Cassation, the employer and Mr X argued that since the recording was carried out without the knowledge of the person making the call, it constituted unfair means of proof rendering the evidence inadmissible in court. They therefore argued that the Court of Appeal, by using these elements to justify its judgement, violated Articles 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which provides that ‘Each party must prove, according to the law, the facts necessary for the success of his claim’) and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As regards the SMS messages, Mr X. argued that he did not have the burden of proving that he was not the one who used the phone to send the messages.

Concerning the recording of a private conversation carried out without the knowledge of the person making the call, the Cour de Cassation held that it constitutes an unfair means and that such evidence is therefore inadmissible in court. However, the Supreme Court held that the person sending the SMS had to be aware that messages are stored in the phone of the recipient. The SMS was therefore an admissible means of proof.

The Supreme Court therefore approved the Court of Appeal for ruling that the written messages sent to the employee established the existence of harassment.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Protéger son image face à Street View

2007-09-11T09:06:00.000+02:00

Interview de Brad Spitz dans Le Point du 6 septembre 2007

http://www.lepoint.fr/content/tendances/article?id=199518

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

The extent of the authorisation given for the use of one’s image

2007-08-30T16:16:00.000+02:00

Cour de cassation, 1st civil chamber, 14 June 2007, n° 06-13.601

Two children suffering from a serious neuromuscular disease, appeared in a French television programme called “Téléthon”, with the authorisation of their legal representative. The aim of the programme was to enable children to reveal their suffering in order to increase public awareness and raise funds for medical research. During the television programme a photo was taken of the two children in their wheelchairs and reproduced in a school book on sciences, with the following commentary: “Each year a television programme, Téléthon, gathers children suffering from hereditary diseases”.

The legal representative took action against the photo agency and the publisher of the book on the basis of the violation of their right to privacy and image. The Court of Appeal of Nîmes dismissed the action, ruling that the voluntary participation of sick persons in the television programme implies their acceptance to serve the cause and to have their image distributed as widely as possible, and that the litigious photo was not taken out of its original context. Furthermore, the Court considered that the photo did not degrade the children nor debase their personality. Finally, the Court noted that the publication of the photo in the book followed the same aim as the one that was initially intended by the children, i.e. information on the existence of such diseases.

The Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters) reversed and annulled the judgement of the Court of Appeal on the grounds of Article 9 of the Civil Code (‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private life.’) and Article 8-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.’). The Supreme Court ruled that the litigious photo was used in a different context, and therefore required a specific authorisation from the persons concerned. Moreover, the Supreme Court considered that even though a study of public interest exempts the user from having to obtain such an authorisation, it does not necessarily imply that the persons concerned may be identified.

Under French law, every person has an exclusive right to his image. The courts interpret the authorisation given for the reproduction of one’s picture very strictly. The image of a person may not be reproduced in a different context from the one that was authorised, or for a different aim.

In the present case, the photo was used in a different context: a school book, whereas the authorisation was given for a television programme to be broadcast live one evening for the raising of funds for research. However, the aim of the book seems to be very close to the one followed by the television programme (see the commentary of L. Costes (in Lamy, Journal du Droit – Actualités, 2007).

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

The City of Paris stops the use of its name as a trademark and domain name

2007-08-22T10:16:00.000+02:00

High Court of First Instance of Paris (3rd Chamber, 2nd Section), 6 July 2007 http://juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=954
http://juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=954

The City of Paris brought an action before the High Court of First Instance of Paris against an association that registered under the name ‘Paris-Sans Fil’ (‘Wireless Paris’). The association had registered the trademark ‘Paris-Sans Fil’ in the classes 35, 38, 41 and 42, and had reserved the domain names ‘paris-sansfil.info’, ‘paris-sansfil.fr’, ‘paris-sansfil.org’ and ‘paris-sansfil.com’.

In application of Article L.711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code, which provides that ‘Signs may not be adopted as marks where they infringe earlier rights, particularly […] the name, image or repute of a local authority’, the City of Paris requested the annulment of the trademark.

The High Court held that in such a case a local authority has to demonstrate that the use of a litigious sign entails a likelihood of confusion with its own activities or that the use is likely to cause prejudice. In the present case, the Court noted that the City of Paris did bring evidence that it has developed activities in the field of information technologies, in particular in the development of high bandwidth and Wi-Fi, and that it therefore demonstrated that the use of the trademark entailed a risk of confusion on the part of the public. Consequently, the Court annulled the trademark ‘Paris-Sans Fil’.

For the same reasons, the Court held that the use of the name ‘Paris-Sans Fil’ and the registration of the domain names mentioned above, constitute a tort in the meaning of Article 1382 of the Civil Code, which provides that ‘Any act whatever of man, which causes damage to another, obliges the one by whose fault it occurred, to compensate it.’

The Court ordered the association to change its name and to carry out the cancellation of the domain names. The association was ordered to pay symbolic damages to the City –1 euro– but the Court authorized the publication of the judgment in three newspapers or magazines of the plaintiff’s choice, and at the defendant’s expense.

It is not the first time the City of Paris successfully brings a case to court to defend its rights to its name, image and repute, on the grounds of Article L.711-4 of the Intellectual Property Code (see our commentary of the judgement of the High Court of First Instance dated 14 March 2007 at http://juriscom.net/actu/visu.php?ID=923).

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Actions based simultaneously on infringement of copyright and unfair competition

2007-08-16T09:03:00.001+02:00

Cour de cassation, Commercial Chamber, 12 June 2007, n° 05-17.349

Under French law, unfair competition, which is based on tort law, offers much wider protection than that afforded by intellectual property. Therefore, where the outcome of the case on the grounds of intellectual property is uncertain, it is advisable to take action simultaneously on the grounds of infringement of intellectual property and unfair competition.

In the present case, the plaintiffs (the companies Bollé Protection and Bushnell Performance Optics Europe) took legal action against the company Euro Protection for the infringement of ten or so models of sunglasses. They based their action on the grounds of copyright infringement, as well as unfair competition.

The Court of Appeal of Paris dismissed the action based on copyright infringement, ruling that the models were not original in the meaning of copyright law. The Court also dismissed the action based on unfair competition, holding that the action was founded on the same facts as those put forward to claim the infringement of copyright, which was dismissed for lack of originality of the products.

The Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters) approved the Court of Appeal for ruling that the products were not original, but reversed the ruling of the Court in that it rejected the action based on unfair competition. The Supreme Court held that where an action is not successful on the grounds of an intellectual property right, the claimant is still entitled to base its action on the grounds of unfair competition.

Therefore, a plaintiff may claim at the same time that an act constitutes an infringement of an intellectual property right and unfair competition: if the judges rule that the plaintiff’s action is inadmissible on the basis of the intellectual property right, they will have to determine whether unfair competition is established by assessing all the facts stated, including the resemblance between the products.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

The Prince of Monaco has the right to respect for his private life

2007-07-27T10:11:00.000+02:00

Cour de cassation, 1re civ., 27 February 2007, n° 06-10.393, Hachette Filipacchi and others v Albert Grimaldi

In 2005, Paris-Match, the French magazine owned by Hachette Filipacchi, published an interview with Mrs Coste, revealing the birth of her baby boy, fathered by Albert Grimaldi, Prince of Monaco. Several photos illustrated the text. The cover of the magazine had the title ‘Albert of Monaco: Alexandre, the secret child, Nicole, his mother, tells their long story’. Prince Albert brought the case before the High Court of First Instance arguing that the publication infringed on his privacy. The Court condemned Hachette Filipacchi, on the grounds of Article 9 of the French Civil Code, to damages and to the publication of the ruling. The Court of Appeal of Versailles confirmed the ruling. Hachette Filipacchi did not accept the ruling, and appealed before the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters).

Article 9 of the Civil Code provides that ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private life.’ These provisions are rather laconic. The judges generally try to strike a balance between the right to privacy and three forms of justifications: the consent of the person concerned, the reporting of current events and the contribution to a debate of public interest (see the commentary of A. Lepage on the ruling of 27 October 2007, Communication Commerce Electronique, n° 7-8 July-August 2007, page 41 and J.-P. Gridel, Protection de la vie privée: rupture ou continuité?, Gazette du Palais, 18-19 May 2007, p. 4 et seq). For example, a preceding case (Cour de Cassation 1re civ, 24 October 2006, n° 04-16.706) ruled that the fact that a mayor and municipal councillors were freemasons could be disclosed, since the mayor had been charged with forgery and favouritism, and that the disclosure came within the context of a judicial debate and was justified by being information for the public on a debate of general interest.

In the present case, the Cour de Cassation, on 27 February 2007, considered that the reporting of current events could not prevail over the prince’s right to respect for his privacy, and that there was no public debate on the subject.

Before the Supreme Court, Hachette Filipacchi argued that the Court of Appeal of Versailles had misapplied Articles 9 of the Civil Code and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, since the disclosure of Prince Albert’s paternity, Prince Albert being a reigning sovereign since April 2005, was relevant to a debate on public affairs, because of the functions of the person concerned, and was justified by the right to information of the readership.

The Supreme Court dismissed Hachette Filipacchi’s arguments, stating that any person has the right to respect for his private life, whatever his station, birth or functions may be. Moreover, the Supreme Court notes that, at the time the article was published, the public had no knowledge of the existence or filiation of the child, and that the constitution of the Principality excludes any possibility of the child acceding to the throne, since he was born out of marriage wedlock, while Hachette Filipacchi did not even argue that any public debates were being held on the subject in Monaco or France. The Court finally notes that the article digressed, writing about the relationship between Mme Coste and Prince Albert, his reaction to the announcement of the pregnancy and his subsequent behaviour towards the child.

The Supreme Court therefore approved the Court of Appeal for concluding that the absence of any current event or any debate of general interest for which the legitimate information of the public would have justified the disclosure of information at the time of the publication of the litigious article, and dismissed the appeal of Hachette Filipacchi against the ruling of the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court carefully verified whether the right of the public to information justified the disclosure of information on the prince’s privacy. In another case, the Supreme Court ruled that a birth in a princely family (actually the same family) meets the necessity of information and may be disclosed to the public where the birth is likely to have political or dynastical implications (Cour de Cassation 2me civ, 24 October 2006, n° 02-11.122).

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

The Tony Parker and Eva Longoria Wedding : a non happening (?)

2007-07-18T12:15:00.000+02:00

A few days ago we all saw the “so no pictures” of the Parisian wedding of Tony Parker and Eva Longoria on television.

The crowds of curious onlookers attracted by the media hype hovered around the “non event” that has been the most publicized invisible celebrity event of the year.

Buses with heavily tinted windows and large black umbrellas made to resemble protective screens stopped any chance of a stolen glance.

And what of the metal barriers that pushed the public as far away as possible, turning a public area into a totally private place?

Was it to protect the couple’s privacy? No way!!!

It’s business, business and business as ever! And with total disregard for tradition and the laws of marriage, which is legally a public event.

And remember, these stars live off the public. They owe their fame and fortune to their devoted followers. But the public is naïve, faithful and devoid of any ulterior motive. They wait for hours in the hope of catching a glimpse. Dream on Desperate Followers.

But no, this public will get nothing. And if they want to see anything at all they will have to buy the magazine that paid such a high price for an exclusive of the wedding photos. Pictures that are said to be soaring out of sight on the internet auction.

Yes, it is actually nil/null, literally as well as figuratively.

What a nil event to deprive the Faithful of attending the traditional photo taking session that customarily takes place outside the town hall and then the church. Nil, hiding a much more serious null event – the wedding itself.

The act of being married in “huis clos” simply annuls the marriage.

Indeed, Article 165 of the French Civil Code states that a wedding must be held in public – ie in a hall with open doors allowing the public to enter freely. But what happens when the town hall is so inaccessible, that entrance is impossible irrespective of whether the doors are closed or open?

jllavoc (aka Jean-Louis LANGLOIS)

www.bradspitz.com

DailyMotion: a ‘hosting provider’ liable for copyright infringement

2007-07-18T10:26:00.000+02:00

The President of the High Court of First Instance of Paris, in a summary order dated 22 June 2007, held that despite the fact that MySpace is a hosting provider, it acts as a publisher and may therefore be held liable for copyright infringement on its site (see our post here below: ‘The Buttock’ sues MySpace for copyright infringement’, also at http://juriscom.net/actu/visu.php?ID=942).

In a proceeding on the merits (as opposed to the summary procedure before the President of the Court), the High Court of First Instance of Paris, in a judgment dated 13 July 2007 (http://www.juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=947), ruled that DailyMotion is not a publisher. In this case, the producers of the film ‘Joyeux Noel’ sued DailyMotion on the grounds of copyright infringement for the presence of the film on the site.

DailyMotion argued, on the grounds of the French Act of 21 June 2004 on Confidence in the Digital Environment, that it is a mere hosting provider and as such was under no obligation to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity, while the plaintiffs argued that DailyMotion is a publisher, and should therefore be held liable for copyright infringement on its site.

The judges held that DailyMotion is a hosting provider, and not a publisher, but that it must be held liable for copyright infringement, as it was aware of the presence of illegal contents on its site. The Court ruled that DailyMotion is not a publisher because the users themselves provide the contents, despite the fact that DailyMotion commercialises advertisements on the site (the President of the same Court, in its order dated 22 June 2007, held that because of the advertisements on the site, MySpace acted as a publisher).

Moreover, the Court held that the provisions of Article 6-I-2 of the French Act on Confidence in the Digital Environment do not provide for a general exemption for providers, but only for a limitation of the liability of the providers where the providers are not “aware” of the illegal nature of the activity or content.

The provisions of Article 6-I-2 come from the implementation of the Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services (Directive on electronic commerce), which provides, in Article 14, that “Where an information society service is provided that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service, on condition that:
(a) the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which illegal activity or information is apparent
(b) the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information.”

It is interesting to note that the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides that a service provider shall not be held liable if the provider: ‘does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing; in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material’ (§ 512(c) of the US Copyright Act).

The Parisian judges held that DailyMotion was aware that illegal videos were put on line on its site, and that it must therefore be held liable for the acts of copyright infringement, since it deliberately furnished the users with the means to commit the acts of infringement. The solution could be the same before an American court, in particular in application of the provisions of § 512 of the Copyright Act.

The Court also noted that DailyMotion did not act to disable access to the litigious film, whether after receiving a formal letter from the plaintiffs (who sent the letter to DailyMotion before bringing the case to court) or after the damage occurred, whereas it is of the provider’s responsibility to carry out a prior control. The judges specified that even though the law does not provide for a general obligation for the providers to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activities, this limitation is not applicable where the said activities are created or induced by the provider himself.

DailyMotion was condemned by the Court not only for the violation of the plaintiffs’ economic rights (‘droits patrimoniaux’), but also for the violation of the plaintiff’s right of integrity (referred to under UK copyright law as the right to object to derogatory treatment), since the ‘streaming’ means used to broadcast the film only allow a very poor quality visualisation, which is not suited to a feature film, and since the unity of the film was undermined by the fact that it was split into two parts.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Civil Procedure Used for Enforcement of EC Competition Law

2007-07-11T11:52:00.000+02:00

Civil Procedure Used for Enforcement of EC Competition Law by the English, French and German Courts

KLUWER International Competition Law (Hardcover)

by Brad Spitz, George Cumming and Ruth Janal

Synopsis:

European competition law has been increasingly subject to two complementary forces: decentralisation and harmonisation. In the course of this process, certain procedural elements have come to the fore as constituting impediments to the enforcement of Articles 81 and 82 EC in terms of actions for damages. While ECJ case law appears to establish a type of 'minimum' enforcement in this area, the far-reaching analysis presented in this book shows how an 'adequate' or even 'optimal' degree of enforcement may be achieved by effecting a choice between competing procedural solutions. Focusing on rules of civil procedure used by the ordinary courts of England, France, and Germany, the authors show how basic principles - such as protection of the rights of the defence, legal certainty, and proper conduct of the procedure - facilitate the application of the doctrines of effectiveness and non-discrimination to those elements of the national procedure which impede in some manner the effective enforcement of Articles 81 and 82 EC. Their in-depth analysis ranges over procedural aspects of such elements as rules of evidence, costs, expert testimony, injunctions, burden of proof, limitations, and forms of compensation, ultimately leading them to propose clear modifications of certain rules of national procedure that go a long way toward ensuring adequately effective enforcement. This remarkable book breaks through an impasse in European competition law. It serves to steady the balance which has been sought between the different actors of the procedure in each of the national systems studied. For practitioners and jurists it offers a particularly useful approach to the handling of cases involving European competition law, and also serves as a guide by reason of its clear presentation, its clarification of doctrine, and its analysis of national and European case law.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Procedure-Enforcement-Competition-English-International/dp/9041124713

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

‘The Buttock’ sues MySpace for copyright infringement

2007-07-11T10:56:00.001+02:00

On June 22, 2007, the President of the High Court of First Instance of Paris, in a summary order, held that MySpace acts as a publisher, and condemned the service for copyright infringement (Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, Ordonnance de référé, 22 juin 2007, http://www.legalis.net).

Jean-Yves L., a French comedian known by the name of “Lafesse” (literally “the buttock”!), and famous for the (very funny) filmed sketches he directs and acts in, sued MySpace for having reproduced and broadcast his works without any authorisation.

The Court first notes that the terms and conditions of MySpace define the website as “a social networking service that allows Members to create unique personal profiles online in order to find and communicate with old and new friends”.

The Court considered that if MySpace acts as a hosting provider, it also acts as a publisher, since it puts presentation structures at the disposal of the people who are hosted, and makes a profit by broadcasting advertisements each time a video is viewed. The Court therefore concluded that MySpace acts as a publisher and is liable for copyright infringement.

The Court condemned MySpace by application of Article L.122-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code that provides that “Any complete or partial performance or reproduction made without the consent of the author or of his successors in title or assigns shall be unlawful. The same shall apply to translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any technique or process whatsoever”.

The Court ordered the deletion of the litigious page, with a 1.000 euros daily fine for delay in performance.

The Court also condemned MySpace to the payment of 50.000 euros for the commercial prejudice suffered, 3.000 euros for the infringement of the plaintiff’s moral rights, and 5.000 euros for the violation of his personal rights (use of his name and likeness). The Court allocated these amounts on a provisional basis, as this is a summary judgment for urgent matters (theoretically, the plaintiff then takes action on the merits of the case before a court that will render a final judgement). MySpace was also ordered to pay of 3.000 euros to cover the plaintiff’s legal fees.

It seems that the “Bottock”, who is also suing other sites such as Youtube and Dailymotion (http://www.lefigaro.fr), is becoming a pain in the a… for these hosting sites.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Whistleblowing in France

2007-07-10T20:43:00.000+02:00

Read our article on whistleblowing "Whistleblowing : quand un rapport propose d’élargir le domaine
de l’alerte professionnelle, la CNIL siffle le hors-jeu".

At: http://juriscom.net/documents/alertepro20070425.pdf

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com

Le mariage de Tony Parker et de Eva Longoria : un événement nul (?)

2007-07-09T19:39:00.001+02:00

On a tous pu voir à la télévision, il y a quelques jours, les « non images » du mariage parisien de Tony Parker / Eva Longoria.

La foule des badauds, attirés là par le battage des médias autour de ce « non événement » le plus people mais le moins visible et le moins public de l’année.

Les autocars aux vitres fumées, les « borgnioles » opacifiantes déployées, les larges parapluies noirs en guise d’écran protecteur pour toute possibilité de prises de vue comme de tous regards indiscrets, avaient de quoi choquer.

Et que dire des barrières métalliques repoussant le plus loin possible le public, privatisant ainsi tout un espace habituellement public.

La protection de la vie privée ? Certainement pas !!!

Du commerce, du commerce, rien que du commerce ! Tout ceci au mépris des traditions et de la loi qui font des cérémonies du mariage, des choses publiques.

Il ne faut pas oublier que ces « peoples » vivent du public. Que c’est le public qui fait leurs notoriétés et leurs fortunes. Précisément ce public naïf, mais fidèle et désintéressé, qui se presse des heures durant par espoir d’une vision furtive.

Mais non, ce public n’aura droit à rien en retour. Et s’il veut voir quoi que ce soit, qu’il aille donc acheter le magazine qui s’est réservé au prix fort l’exclusivité des clichés. Clichés dont on dit aujourd’hui sur internet que les enchères montent !

Alors oui ! la nullité est là et bien là, au propre comme au figuré.

Nullité de l’événement pour priver les « afficionados » d’assister à la traditionnelle photo de sortie de la mairie puis de l’église, puisque mariage religieux il y a eu. Nullité qui pourrait bien en masquer une autre, plus conséquente, celle éventuelle du mariage lui-même.

Car en écartant par principe le public de la célébration à la mairie, en tenant pour privé un événement que la loi prévoit être public, les époux Parker, par crainte qu’on leur vole un peu de leur image, sont tombés de Charybde et Scylla.

La manière « nulle » qu’ils ont eu de gérer leur image, n’a d’égale que la nullité plus conséquente qu’ils pourraient encourir à raison du « huis clos » dans lequel ils ont tenu leur mariage: celle tout simplement de son annulation.

En effet par application de l’article 165 du code civil, la célébration du mariage doit se dérouler publiquement, c’est-à-dire dans une salle dont les portes doivent être tenues ouvertes et le public admis librement. Mais qu'en est-il lorsque la porte de la mairie est si inaccessible, qu'en toute hypothèse, ouverte ou fermée, on ne peut y accéder?

jllavoc (aka Jean-Louis LANGLOIS)

The Olympic games infringement case, and the winner is ... Paris

2007-07-05T18:53:00.000+02:00

On 14 March 2007, the High Court of First Instance of Paris (‘Tribunal de Grande Instance’) rendered a judgement (1) condemning a Parisian, Mr Gilbert L., for registering, in March and July 2005, the trade marks “Paris 2016”, “Paris 2020”, “Paris 2024” and “Paris 2028”, and the domain names “paris2016.com”, “paris2016.fr”, “paris2020.com”, “paris2020.fr”, etc…

London stealing the chance to organise the Olympic games of 2012 from Paris (“Paris 2012”) in 2005, was bad enough; this second form of theft could not be tolerated. Paris and the Comité national olympic et sportif français (“CNOSF”, the French National Olympic and Sport Comity), a French association which represents the Olympic Movement in France, took action against Mr Gilbert L. at the end of 2005, claiming the infringement of CNOSF’s trade mark “Paris 2012’”.

In its judgement, the Paris Court first explains that it is customary for cities candidate for the Olympic games to authorise the use of their names, followed by the year of the relevant games. In January 2003, the CNOSF indeed applied for the registration of the French trade mark “Paris 2012” for the products and services in the international classes 1 to 45.

The Court annulled the trade marks registered by Mr Gilbert L., on the grounds of Article L.712-6 of the French Intellectual Property Code (IPC) which provides that “Where registration has been applied for, either fraudulently with respect to the rights of another person or in violation of a statutory or contractual obligation, any person who believes he has a right to the mark may claim ownership by legal proceedings”. The Court took into consideration the fact that the press had published numerous articles over the years on the Olympic games in Paris, designating the event as “Paris 2012”. The court also highlighted that it is well known that the games are in part financed by the licensing of trade marks to companies exploiting all types of products.

Following the same reasoning, the Court ruled that the registration of the domain names was fraudulent.

The action was also based on the infringement of the trademark “Paris 2012”. As the signs at stake were not identical (“Paris 2012” / “Paris 2016”, “Paris 2020”, “Paris 2024”, “Paris 2028”), the Court examined the infringement in the light of Article L.713-3 b IPC, that provides that “shall be prohibited, unless authorized by the owner, if there is a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public, the imitation of a mark and the use of an imitated mark for goods or services that are identical or similar to those designated in the registration”. The provisions of Article L.713-3 b IPC are very close to those of Section 10(2)(a) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 (2). The Court found that the signs had visual and phonetic similarities, and that they were conceptually close, since all of them evoked the organisation of the summer Olympic games in Paris, and were based on the use of the year in which these sports events would be organised.

For the same reasons, the Court ruled that the registration of the litigious domain names also constituted acts of infringement by imitation.

The Court finally held that the registration and use of the term “Paris” undermined the rights of the City of Paris to its name, image and repute. Article L.711-4 h IPC indeed provides that “Signs may not be adopted as marks where they infringe earlier rights, particularly […] the name, image or repute of a local authority”.

As regards the sanctions, the Courts condemned Mr Gilbert L. to the payment of damages to the CNOSF: 5.000 euros for the fraudulent registration, and 5.000 euros for the acts of infringement. As the litigious trade marks had hardly been exploited, the Court condemned the out of line Parisian to the payment of a “symbolic euro” to the City of Paris.

In a ruling dated 27 October 2004, the Court of Appeal of Paris (3) had already rendered a judgement relating to the registration of the trade mark “Paris 2000” and of the domain name “paris2000.info”. The Court held that the person who registered and used the domain name “paris2000.info” had committed acts of unfair competition (parasitism) (4), by creating a website with no connection to Paris in general, and to the City of Paris in particular.

(1) Court of High Instance of Paris, 14 mars 2007, 4e ch., www.legalis.net
(2) “A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign where because the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services identical or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, there exists a likelihood of confusion in the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the trade mark”.
(3) Court of Appeal of Paris, 4e ch., 27 octobre 2004, www.legalis.net
(4) French unfair competition law doctrine is close to the UK doctrine of passing off.

BRAD SPITZ
www.bradspitz.com