Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
News Not All Good For Google ' Or Its Advertisers
“Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you always should.” Never has that saying had more meaning than when it comes to Internet advertising. True, this new avenue for advertising has helped some companies exponentially increase their business, but the methods for “re-directing” prospective customers have come under great scrutiny by the courts in the last 6 months. Recent decisions warn that keyword advertising through paid placements such as “Sponsored” or “Featured” ads could lead you directly to the defendant's table in federal court.
Internet search engines (such as Google, Yahoo! and Excite) operate by enabling users to locate Web sites containing specific search terms ' most often brand names. Within seconds, users are presented with lists of sites containing that term ' the “Hit List”. Links to the Web sites ordinarily appear in order of decreasing relevance, meaning it's likely that only the top few sites on the Hit List will be visited by the user.
In the early ' and less sophisticated ' days of Internet advertising, sites appearing at the top of the Hit List generally contained the “searched” term in the content of the Web site, as well as the site's domain name. As the marketplace became more competitive, many advertisers seeking “extra” search engine attention adopted competitors' trademarks as domain names, and also hid the marks within the invisible text of their sites. This method has been prohibited by legislation, the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. '1125(d), and by case law from numerous circuits.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.