This case dealt with Contributory Copyright and Trademark infringement, and damages. Defendant rented server space to website hosts that had websites with links to an email address that would let people buy fake Louis Vuitton gear. LV sent cease and desist letters to the website hosts and the company that leased server space. When the cease and desist letters didn't do anything Louis Vuitton sued for contributory copyright and trademark infringement. The lower court found for VL but the appeals court took it up to decide if the jury instruction was wrong, if the judgement as a matter of law was wrong, and whether or not the damages were wrong. Most importantly to me, though, was the court's holding regarding the trademark infringement, which I discuss below.
The court said that LV had to show that defendant continued to supply its services to someone who the service provider knew or had reason to know was engaging in trademark infringement. Inwood Labs, Inc. v. Ives Labs., Ince., 456 U.S. 844, 854 (1982). Also, because the defendant was a service provider, LV had to show that defendant had "[d]irect control and monitoring of the instrumentality used by a third party to infringe". Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 984 (9th Cir. 1999). The court reasoned that the defendant had control because it had direct control over the "master switch" that kept the websites online. The court further held that Defendants contribution to infringement doesn't have to be intentional for liability to exist. The court decided that LV only had to show that defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that the services they provided were being used for trademark infringement.
No comments:
Post a Comment