"Google" is not Generic

The case involved whether a trademark owner should lose rights in instances when the trademark is frequently used as a verb such as in the phrase "Google it."

 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that "googled" may have become synonymous for Internet searching, but that does not mean that the company cannot protect its name.

 

Under federal law, anyone can wipe out a trademark as well as the legal protection it officer, if it can be shown that most of the public thinks of the mark as a common work for a good or service. This has happened to other brands in the past, including Kleenex. This has come to be known as "generocide."

 

The court cited an earlier decision involving a restaurant that replaced customers' order for "a coke" with a non Coca-Cola beverage. Coke won the case because the restaurant failed to show that people thought of cola and coke interchangeably.

 

While Google is dominant for search engines, it is not dominant that its trademark is in doubt. Even with the verbing of its trademark, consumers still clearly understand that there are other search engines such as Bing and Yahoo! and that Google merely denotes one of them.

Do you have a right to be forgotten?

Recently, a plaintiff in the US sued search engines because after running his name through the search engine's services, the top results had included links to filings from various previous legal actions he had filed. The plaintiff 's possible future employer had seen those results and decided not to hire him.
It is an interesting question whether one can actually do anything about search results concerning former litigations. In the US one simply cannot.

Search engines are granted immunity from liability, as long as they are an interactive computer service displaying information from other information content providers, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
This means that the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and his many former litigation filings will stay where they are - online and visible to everyone. Several other courts have already come to the same conclusion about litigation material. Personal litigation conduct becomes part of an individual's permanent record. There is no such thing as a "right to be forgotten" in the US.

The right to be forgotten, however, is a right granted by the EU. Exercising this right, one may force search engines or data operators to "forget" certain personal data by deleting or de-indexing it. This law was introduced in 2014 when the European Court of Justice decided in its ruling against Google that data protection laws do apply to search engines.

You may ask search engines to remove links that feature personal information if the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive, and not of public  interest. The right is not an absolute one and needs to be weighed up against freedom of expression and media rights in every single case

The "Right to be forgotten" is just an example that shows a divergence in the protection of personal data between the US and the EU. Or, like the European Parliament stated in its comparative study between U.S.- and EU- data protection legislation in 2015 "while some legal concepts are similar to a certain extent, most of the EU data protection guarantees simply do not exist in US law".

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/536459/IPOL_STU(2015)536459_EN.pdf

Google droht Datenschutzklage

Google droht in den USA eine Klage, da das Unternehmen angeblich Datenschutzeinstellungen von Usern umging. Der Suchmaschinist will die Klage mit einem Vergleich abwenden, in dem er sich zu einer Millionenzahlung verpflichtet. Die Rede ist von 22 Millionen US Dollar, umgerechnet ca. 18 Millionen Euro.

Bereits Anfang des Jahres hatte das Wall Street Journal berichtet, dass Google den Datenschutz im Safari-Browser des Konkurrenten Apple umgehen konnte. Google wird vorgeworfen mit sog. Cookies das Verhalten von Nutzern gegen dessen Willen aufgezeichnet zu haben. Der Suchmaschinist ließ daraufhin verlautbaren, dass dies unabsichtlich geschah.

Nachdem die Zeitung den Suchmaschinisten zu den Vorwürfen befragt hatte, hat Google die Software wieder abgeschaltet. Obwohl Google diese Software abgeschalten hatte, hat die US-Kartellbehörde (Federal Trade Commission) den Fall untersucht. Sogar die Staatsanwaltschaften von mehreren Bundesstaaten hatten ermittelt.

Offenbar hat Google einem Vergleich in Höhe von 22 Millionen US Dollar bereits zugestimmt. Diese Vereinbarung bedarf zu ihrer Gültigkeit jedoch noch der Zustimmung der Federal Trade Commission. Falls diese dem Vergleich stattgibt, wäre das die höchste jemals in der US-Geschichte verhängte Strafe.

(c) Picture:  Google

A Green Apple in North Carolina

Maiden, North Carolina, is home to Apple's largest and most recent data center, which in turn is at the heart of the company's latest push into cloud storage and cloud computing through its iCloud service.

The North Carolina data center will also showcase “the nation's largest end-user-owned, onsite solar array,” as the company's' 2012 environmental update report boasts. When completed, the 100-acre, 20-megawatt facility will produce 42 million kWh annually.

That's not it, though. Apple is also building a fuel cell installation that is planned to go online sometime this year. It will be the largest non-utility fuel cell installation operating in the United States. The 5-megawatt facility is located directly adjacent to the data center and will be powered by 100 percent biogas. It will provide more than 40 million kWh of around-the-clock baseload renewable energy annually.

The data center already is exceptionally energy efficient and has earned the LEED Platinum certification by the U.S. Green Building Council. The environmental report states some of the energy-efficient elements of the facility to be:

• “A chilled water storage system to improve chiller efficiency by transferring 10,400 kWh of electricity consumption from peak to off-peak hours each day.
  
• Use of “free” outside air cooling through a waterside economizer operation during night and cool-weather hours, which, along with water storage, allows the chillers to be turned off more than 75 percent of the time.
  
• Extreme precision in managing cooling distribution for cold-air containment pods, with variable-speed fans controlled to exactly match air flow to server requirements from moment to moment.
  
• Power distributed at higher voltages, which increases efficiency by reducing power loss.
• White cool-roof design to provide maximum solar reflectivity. ñ High-efficiency LED lighting combined with motion sensors.
  
• Real-time power monitoring and analytics during operations.
• Construction processes that utilized 14 percent recycled materials, diverted 93 percent of construction waste from landfills, and sourced 41 percent of purchased materials within 500 miles of the site.”

Apple is not alone in establishing energy-hungry data centers in North Carolina's foothills. Google and Facebook are neighbors. The reason is that the area was once home to the state's textile and furniture industry and thus already wired for heavy industry. Also, electricity in North Carolina is very cheap, particularly for industrial customers. A further incentive is that state and local authorities gave Apple an attractive ten-year tax deal.

It is not clear how much energy the Maiden data center will use, but it's unlikely that its renewable energy sources will suffice. A large percentage of its energy will be produced by Duke Energy's nearby coal powered plants. In 2011, Greenpeace ranked Apple's data center energy as the dirtiest among 10 technology companies.

Nevertheless, the greening of Apple is certainly welcome. It's good for the state economy, it's good for the environment.

(c) Picture: freedigitalphotos.net

Google verliert vor dem Bundesgerichtshof (BGH): erhöhte Prüfpflichten bei Blogeinträgen

Google wurde von einem Geschäftsmann als Betreiber eines Blogs verklagt (BGH, Urt. v. 25. Oktober 2011, VI ZR 93/10). Der Kläger beanstandete, dass ein von einem Dritten eingerichteter Blog unter anderem eine Tatsachenbehauptung enthält, die unwahr und ehrenrührig sei. Daraufhin verklagte der Geschäftsmann Google als Hostprovider in der Störerhaftung auf Unterlassung. Die beiden Vorinstanzen (LG Hamburg, OLG Hamburg) gaben dem Kläger Recht. Google hatte argumentiert, es könne die Wahrheit von Blogeinträgen nicht überprüfen und sei daher zur Löschung nicht verpflichtet. Zudem finde deutsches Recht keine Anwendung.

Der Bundesgerichtshof gab den beiden Vorinstanzen insofern Recht, dass für das Verfahren deutsches Recht anwendbar sei. Zusätzlich konkretisierte er die Voraussetzungen unter denen ein Hostprovider als Störer für von ihm nicht verfasste oder gebilligte Äußerungen eines Dritten in einem Blog auf Unterlassung in Anspruch genommen werden kann.

Folgende Pflichtverletzungen des Hostproviders müssen nach den Feststellungen des BGH vorliegen:

• Der Hinweis müsse so konkret gefasst sein, dass der Rechtsverstoß auf der Grundlage der Behauptungen des Betroffenen unschwer - das heißt ohne eingehende rechtliche und tatsächliche Überprüfung - bejaht werden kann. Regelmäßig sei zunächst die Beanstandung des Betroffenen an den für den Blog Verantwortlichen zur Stellungnahme weiterzuleiten.
  
  
• Bleibe eine Stellungnahme innerhalb einer nach den Umständen angemessenen Frist aus, sei von der Berechtigung der Beanstandung auszugehen und der beanstandete Eintrag zu löschen. Stelle der für den Blog Verantwortliche die Berechtigung der Beanstandung substantiiert in Abrede und ergeben sich deshalb berechtigte Zweifel, sei der Provider grundsätzlich gehalten, dem Betroffenen dies mitzuteilen und gegebenenfalls Nachweise zu verlangen, aus denen sich die behauptete Rechtsverletzung ergibt.
  

• Bleibe hingegen eine Stellungnahme des Betroffenen aus oder lege er gegebenenfalls erforderliche Nachweise nicht vor, sei eine weitere Prüfung nicht veranlasst. Ergebe sich aus der Stellungnahme des Betroffenen oder den vorgelegten Belegen auch unter Berücksichtigung einer etwaigen Äußerung des für den Blog Verantwortlichen eine rechtswidrige Verletzung des Persönlichkeitsrechts, sei der beanstandete Eintrag zu löschen.

Der Bundesgerichtshof hat die Sache an das Berufungsgericht (OLG Hamburg) zurückgewiesen, um den Parteien Gelegenheit zu geben, vorzutragen, ob Google seine Pflichten erfüllt hat oder nicht.

(c) Picture: google.com

ECJ May Limit Rights of Advertisers to Use Names of Rivals as Keywords

Google and other search engine providers offer advertisers the opportunity to purchase advertising keywords corresponding to trademarks, often those owned by their competitors. As a consequence, a user who types in a brand name may be directed to the website of a company that offers competing products.

One of the latest examples in a series of cases concerning search engine advertisement is the lawsuit by Interflora, the flower delivery service, against the British competing florist operation Marks & Spencer.

A search under the word “Interflora” on Google Britain revealed sponsored advertisements for three different websites, among them Marks & Spencer's. In the eyes of Interflora this mislead customers.

In March 2010, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg (ECJ) ruled in cases brought against Google France by Louis Vuitton Malletier and Viaticum that Google is not liable for selling advertising keywords based on brand names to competitors. However, this ruling may be not of any advantage for Google this time.

The advocate general, Niilo Jääskinen, declared that advertisers should be inhibited from buying rival trademarks as keywords if an average internet user is not (or only with difficulty) able to determine whether the goods or services referred to in the advertisement originate from the trademark owner or from a third party.

Although courts are not obligated by law to adopt the opinion of the advocate general, their opinion is generally followed.

Search advertisements on Google are one of the fastest-growing areas of marketing. The ads generate more than $20 billion a year. The ECJ decision could therefore have a negative effect on Google's turnover.

(c) Picture: google.com

Google Fights to Keep Documents Secret in Trademark Appeal

Google is famous for bringing all information including private one to the Internet, but now the company hopes to keep several documents secret in a pending appeal.

Language software maker Rosetta Stone appealed after a federal judge ruled for Google in a trademark dispute. and now Google presented a lot of redacted documents.

It seems that privacy matters. Hopefully for all!

E.U. Says It Will Overhaul Privacy Regulations

PARIS — The European Commission called on Thursday for stronger protection of Internet users’ personal information, after news of data leaks at companies like Facebook and Google highlighted concerns about digital privacy.

Viviane Reding, the justice commissioner, announced its intention to overhaul the European Union’s data protection rules to take account of the development of social networking, personalized advertising and other Web services that have raised privacy concerns. The new legislation, set to be introduced next year, would replace rules that date to 1995.

“The protection of personal data is a fundamental right,” Ms. Reding said. “To guarantee this right, we need clear and consistent data protection rules. We also need to bring our laws up to date with the challenges raised by new technologies and globalization.”

The commission said consumers should be informed “in a clear and transparent way” about how their data will be used. They should also have the right to fully delete digital information, like social networking profiles, and should be informed when their data has been used in unlawful ways, the commission added.

Several recent leaks of personal data have highlighted concerns about privacy in the digital realm, which have been more pronounced in some European countries, like Germany, than in the United States.

Google said last month, for example, that it had inadvertently collected information like e-mail messages and passwords when it gathered pictures for its Street View online mapping service; data protection officials in Britain said this week that this represented a “significant breach” of privacy laws, and officials in other countries are investigating.

Facebook, meanwhile, recently acknowledged that some of its social networking applications passed personal information to marketers without the user’s knowledge.

“The commission has planted the flag showing that the consumer’s right to privacy should not be undermined merely because it has become easier and more profitable to break it in the virtual world,” said Monique Goyens, director general of the European Consumers’ Organization, known by its French acronym, BEUC.

But the commission’s announcement was short on specifics — leaving open, for example, the question of whether Internet companies would have to secure consumers’ express permission before using or sharing personal data; currently, technology companies often do this unless consumers specifically forbid them from doing so. Submissions from privacy advocates, technology companies and other interested parties will be considered until Jan. 15, the commission said.

Rules requiring Internet companies to secure users’ consent upfront could hamper the development of services that align online advertising with Web users’ personal interests, as reflected in the Web sites they visit or the preferences they express in social networks and other online forums. From a marketer’s perspective, this could dilute one of the big advantages of the Web over traditional media.

Technology companies have also been calling for an update of E.U. privacy rules, however, saying there are too many different interpretations of existing legislation across the 27-nation bloc. This has hampered efforts to develop so-called cloud computing services, in which personal data sometimes crosses national borders, subjecting Internet companies to different sets of standards.

“It looks like the European Commission is not expecting a major overhaul of the existing data protection rules, but it is right about the need for harmonization,” said Wim Nauwelaerts, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams in Brussels, whose clients include a number of big technology companies.

Google muss 8.5 Millionen USD zahlen, um den Streit um Google Buzz beizulegen

Am 9. Februar 2010 startete Google den Service Buzz, einen Zusatzdienst, der es Google Mailnutzern ermöglicht Bilder, Videos und Kurznachrichten untereinander auszutauschen.

Im Februar 2011 wurde dann eine Sammelklage gegen Google von Google Benutzern eingereicht. Die Kläger behaupteten, dass Google Buzz insbesondere gegen den Computer Fraud and Abuse Act verstößt. In diesem Gesetz sind insbesondere Vorschriften hinsichtlich Datenschutzes und der Privatsphähre eines Computers enthalten. Google Buzz hatte beim Start des Services sämtliche US-Nutzer des Dienstes Google Mail in den Google Buzz Dienst intergriert und automatisch eine Liste von sogenannten Mitlesern geschaffen. Dadurch war auch für andere Nutzer sichtbar mit welchen Kontakten die häufigste Korrespondenz stattfand.

Um den Rechtsstreit beizulegen hat Google sich nun bereit erklärt einen Betrag von rund 8.5 Millionen USD an verschiedene Datenschutzorganisationen zu bezahlen und hierfür einen Fond zu errichten. Neben dieser Zahlung erhalten die Kläger das Recht, Google auf neu auftretende Mängel hinsichtlich des Datenschutzes hinzuweisen und deren Beseitigung zu verlangen. Abzuwarten bleibt letztlich nur noch, ob das Gericht am 31. Januar 2011 diesem Vergleich zustimmen wird.

Rechtsvergleich

Im deutschen Rechtssystem wäre solch eine Sammelklage gar nicht möglich gewesen. Die Sammelklage ist dadurch charakterisiert, dass eine Personenmehrheit gegen einen oder mehrere Beklagte eine einzige Klage erhebt. Das deutsche Rechtssystem gründet sich jedoch auf dem Gedanken, dass Kläger nur derjenige sein kann, der auch in seinen eigenen Rechten möglicherweise verletzt ist.

In den USA hingegen ist eine Sammelklage in der Form möglich, dass eine Person stellvertretend für andere Betroffene als Kläger auftritt, ohne dass es einer Verletzung jedes Einzelnen bedarf. Die Betroffenen müssen lediglich den Nachweis führen, dass sie der betroffenen Personengruppe angehören.

Grundsätzlich ist der einzige Weg im deutschen Zivilprozess mehrere Kläger als Parteien zu haben die sog. Streitgenossenschaft oder die Verbindung einzelner Verfahren. Dabei bleibt aber jeder einzelne Kläger und es handelt sich nur um einen Zusammenschluss einzelner Verfahren. Somit verliert auch keiner der Beteiligten seinen Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör.

Das im Jahre 2002 in Deutschland eingeführte Unterlassungsklagegesetz enthält zu dem aufgezeigten Grundsatz eine Ausnahme, die sog. Verbandsklage. Diese Verbandsklage ist vergleichbar mit der Sammeklage, jedoch mit weitreichenden Einschränkungen. Hier ist es für Verbraucherverbände möglich eine Klage für mehrere Verbraucher einzureichen. Allerdings steht dem einzelnen Verbraucher nach wie vor nur seine eigene Klagebefugnis zur Verfügung.

Da die Verbandsklage nur in einigen wenigen Rechtsbereichen in Deutschland möglich ist, werden deutsche Kläger sich auch weiterhin auf einzelne Klagen gegen Unternehmen wie Google verlassen müssen oder versuchen einen Verband davon zu überzeugen Klage einzureichen.

Google Agrees to Change Ad Policy to Settle Case

PARIS — Google has pledged to overhaul its rules and procedures for blocking certain advertisers from buying “sponsored links” on its search engine as part of a settlement with French authorities announced Thursday.

As part of the deal with French Competition Authority, Google agreed to adopt conditions, including a three-month notification period, when it rejects some ads from appearing next to its search results in France.

The specific conditions apply only in France, and concern only ads for tools aimed at helping drivers avoid speed traps; the settlement stems from a complaint by a company called NavX, which provides online maps pinpointing the location of speed cameras on French roads.

But, under the settlement, Google also agreed to apply “the principle of improvements and clarifications made in implementing these commitments” in every country in which it operates AdWords, its keyword advertising system.

“This is a monumental event, because the French competition authority got Google to modify its contractual rules on a worldwide basis,” said Ron Soffer, a lawyer for NavX. “So if you are in the shoe business in California and Google suddenly decides it doesn’t like shoes, this settlement will affect you.”

For more information, please click here.

Google verliert in Frankreich

Ein Urteil in Frankreich verbietet google books, Buecher von einem Verlagshaus im Internet einzustellen. Gut im Sinne von Copyright, schlecht, wer mal eben in Deutschland oder den USA mal schnell ein Franzoesischbuch sucht.