Unless you've been living on Mars recently, you'll have heard of the RTÉ Prime Time exposé of dodgy dealings in the property market. Amongst other things, that program revealed that estate agents are (illegally) buying information from mortgage brokers about prospective purchasers: how much they have to spend, how much they've received in mortgage approval, how much they might have from other sources (such as parental gifts). Unsurprisingly, they are using this to extract every last penny from purchasers.
Hopefully we'll remember this the next time somebody tries to tell us that if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
From "the innocent have nothing to fear" files - police kept record of beautiful women
Cops kept record of beautiful women - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com:
STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Two Swedish border control officers risk disciplinary action for keeping a photo collection of 'exceptionally beautiful' women who passed through their checkpoint, police officials said Tuesday.
The officers, who were working at a ferry terminal near Stockholm, made photocopies of the women's passport photos and placed them in a binder. They also noted the date of birth next to each entry, the Stockholm police department said.
The binder contained instructions on how to compile the collection, and orders to make backup copies in case the binder would go missing or be confiscated by 'evil-minded bores,' police said.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Irish law on metatags and keywords
I've written (together with Paul Lambert of Merrion Legal solicitors) a piece on the legal issues involved where businesses find their trademarks being used by competitors as metatags or keywords. The full article (with the kind permission of Thomson Roundhall) is available here. Excerpt:
As cybersquatting declines we find that trade mark owners now have to defend their names in a different context. As search engines become more sophisticated, users are tending to rely on them as their primary means of navigation. Rather than type in a domain name directly (or rely on a bookmark), many users will simply enter a term—such as a company name or product – into a search engine, expecting the site they are looking for to appear high in the list of results. Consequently, the importance of domain names is diminished and search engines take on a new prominence. As Nielsen puts it:
“Web users are growing ever-more search dominant. Search is how people discover new websites and find individual pages within websites and intranets. Unless you're listed on the first search engine results page … you might as well not exist.”
This poses a new problem for trade mark holders—what happens when a competitor uses their trade mark in such a way that a person searching for the term will be shown a competing site in the list of results, or will be shown an advertisement for the competitor? ...
At first glance the unauthorised use of trade marks as metatags or keywords might seem to be a clear infringement of the mark in question. The trade mark holder will certainly argue that the metatag or keyword improperly takes advantage of the goodwill in the trademarked term and confuses the user into believing that there is some link between the trade mark and the search results or advertisements displayed in response. It can also be argued that the search engine is itself guilty of infringement by selling the trademarked term as a keyword. In addition, the tort of passing-off may be available.
However, look more closely and the position becomes more complicated. Trade mark law was not drafted with metatags or keywords in mind, making it difficult to bring these situations within the legislative language. There will be some situations where the trade mark use is legitimate, for example, a company which manufactures spare parts for BMW cars might be entitled to use “spare parts suitable for BMW” in its metatags.
The likelihood of consumer confusion may also be less in metatag / keyword cases as the trade mark is being used “invisibly” — that is, in a way which is not directly visible to the user, reducing the likelihood that the user will associate the search result or the advertisement with the trade mark. If a search engine faces liability for selling trademarked keywords, it may be hard to determine whether that liability is direct or merely contributory. (Some cases suggest that the search engine should not be liable for the keywords chosen by its clients.)
In addition, some would argue that provided users are not confused, presenting advertisements for competing goods alongside search results is no more objectionable than a shop placing similar products in the same aisle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)