On May 18, 2020, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a statement regarding concerns of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Safe Harbor programs. Sparked by the ouster of the mobile gaming player, Miniclip S.A., from the Children’s Advertising Review Unit’s (CARU) Safe Harbor program, the FTC announced action against Miniclip to order the cessation of its alleged misrepresentations regarding Miniclip’s participation in the self-regulatory program. A proposed settlement Consent Order was agreed and will published in the Federal Register for public comment shortly.Read More
All companies that conduct business online should take note of a potential upcoming renewal deadline for the “safe harbor” from copyright infringement liability. Online service providers seeking safe harbor under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) must designate a copyright agent with the U.S. Copyright Office and renew that designation at least once every three years. Failure to do so will negate the online service provider’s ability to claim the safe harbor from copyright infringement liability under § 512(c). Many companies renewed their designations between December 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017 using the Copyright Office’s new electronic filing system. For those that did, the three-year renewal deadline may be approaching.Read More
On April 10, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion, at the request of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), regarding submissions of webpages as specimens of use. In re Siny Corp is an important reminder to applicants and practitioners to carefully consider whether webpage specimens to be submitted to the USPTO actually comprise the offering of goods and/or services at the point of sale, or whether they are mere advertising.Read More
In a ruling on 3 February 2017, the Court of Appeal in Białystok (Poland) considered an appeal by a defendant in a case concerning the right to combat unfair competition (case file I ACa 740/16). The dispute arose over the use by the defendant of the business name of the plaintiff when marketing services on the Internet.
The plaintiff’s business is debt recovery. Its activities involve acquiring debts from third parties or acting on behalf of creditors. The plaintiff became aware that the effectiveness of its activities was declining and believed the cause of this lay in the unlawful, in its opinion, activities of the defendant. The defendant conducts business involving consultancy services for debtors of banks and other institutions.