safe harbours – Page 2

Posted in Court of Justice, e-commerce, EU, injunctions, ISP, safe harbours

Scarlet Extended (Scarlet v. Sabam) – the first Hearing Report

Scarlet Extended C-70/10 dealing with the scope of injunctions against the intermediary (filtering methods) is one of the highlights of this year. Thanks to LINX you can now read a report from the very first hearing of this case held before Court of Justice on the 13th of January. Some interesting hints: Chamber – Unknown,

Posted in copyright, hosting, ISP, safe harbours, search engines, US

YouTube Covered by The Hosting Safe Harbour

Great news! Google has won a long standing lawsuit – Viacom v. YouTube. Southern District Court of New York has affirmed that DMCA safe harbours have been intended to cover such service as YouTube. Huťko guess that most of us expected the ruling in favour of Google. E.g. I am pretty sure about prof. Giovanni

Posted in Court of Justice, EU, ISP, safe harbours

Questions Referred in the Scarlet v. Sabam

Scarlet Extended C-70/10 already known as Scarlet v. Sabam case has it´s referred questions on the Curia website already. They are same as 1709 blog previously reported. However, now with the assigned number at least a bit further on it´s 17 months way (average time before CJ) to the arrival of the final decision. Making

Posted in Court of Justice, safe harbours, search engines, trade marks

The Court of Justice Speaks Out on the AdWords

Though there are plenty of duties i should be carrying out at the moment, i had to read the Luis Vuitton vs. Google C-236/08 decision from this morning. It conveys new thoughts on the trade mark but also on the e-commerce law. Therefore making it a landmark decision in the field. I wouldn´t express it

Posted in Court of Justice, duty of care, EU, intellectual property, ISP, safe harbours

European Safe Harbours and the Future Case Law

This year could be incredibly ground breaking for European safe harbours. Despite of many preliminary questions, it´s unlikely (still believe in TM issue) that all of them are going to be answered. Although i think they should be (not just because of my interest). So let´s sum up, what we have at the “porch” of

Maduro´s neutrality condition critisism

As i´ve pointed out last week, i never got the neutrality condition proposed by GA Maduro. As much as our opinions coinceded on the trademark issue, i couldn´t help to disagree with his reasonig on the hosting exemption. General Advocate stated that hosting exemption does not apply to AdWords, because of not meeting essential neutrality