Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Hosting : Web Host Ordered To Pay $32M For Contributing To Trademark Infringement

[Keith W]

Originally Posted by Computerworld

In what's being called a landmark decision, a federal jury in California has found two Web hosting companies and their owner liable for contributing to trademark and copyright infringement for hosting sites selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods

Link to full article

This has far reaching implications for all web hosts

[CompuSite]

that's pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing it!

[GarrettReardon]

If the hosts knew that the sites were there and didn't take them down, that's the price they pay.

[ldcdc]

If the hosts knew that the sites were there and didn't take them down, that's the price they pay.

Ultimately, isn't it the job of a court to decide what is an infringement and what is not? Who made the hosts judge and jury? Why should hosts have to act as such? Who's going to pay for this sort of administrative cost?

[GigeWeb]

The websites were selling knock-offs, fake. I think I can go take the guy at the mall who sold me a pair of $70 knock-off sun-glasses last weekend to court and get a nice chunk of change. When you go to the shore or something you see a lot of stands selling stuff that looks similar to the real stuff, should they be taken to the court, looks the same. I think there is much more to the story than what was stated in the article.

[FS - Mike]

In the end, they didn't remove the content in a reasonable amount of time, if they did, they wouldn't be facing this fine. I do agree with Dan though, in that ISPs should not be judge and jury as to who is uploading illegal content and who is uploading legal content.

[Aussie Bob]

Originally Posted by ldcdc

Ultimately, isn't it the job of a court to decide what is an infringement and what is not? Who made the hosts judge and jury? Why should hosts have to act as such?

Exactly. Why folks expect the host to be essentially judge and jury, is beyond me. I've been caught in some situations where one party is not happy with another party and they're trying to force to me to take action against the other party on their behalf. "Come back with a court order, or a legal document", is my usual response. I never hear back from them.

[HD-Sam]

I usually do the same as Aussie Bob, but I try and go on a case by case basis. If I received a notice from the Louis Vuitton corporate offices, I'd give it a second look.

[expo09]

Originally Posted by GigeWeb

The websites were selling knock-offs, fake. I think I can go take the guy at the mall who sold me a pair of $70 knock-off sun-glasses last weekend to court and get a nice chunk of change. When you go to the shore or something you see a lot of stands selling stuff that looks similar to the real stuff, should they be taken to the court, looks the same. I think there is much more to the story than what was stated in the article.

If hosts are being taken to court for what websites they are hosting have done then you should be able to take the mall to court for allowing them to sell.

Hosts can't always know if what the websites are doing is legit. If there's evidence they knew what was going on then maybe.

[GigeWeb]

Originally Posted by expo09

If hosts are being taken to court for what websites they are hosting have done then you should be able to take the mall to court for allowing them to sell.

Hosts can't always know if what the websites are doing is legit. If there's evidence they knew what was going on then maybe.

That is why I think there is more to the story than what is being said. I also think I am going to go to the mall this Saturday and tell the guy I am going to take him to court as some company did for a web host and got some big bucks. If I was awarded 32 Million, I would then be able to afford 47,000+ real louis Vuitton sun-glasses even though I purchased a different brand the point was that it was a knock-off.

[Mach4-Chris]

Originally Posted by GigeWeb

That is why I think there is more to the story than what is being said. I also think I am going to go to the mall this Saturday and tell the guy I am going to take him to court as some company did for a web host and got some big bucks. If I was awarded 32 Million, I would then be able to afford 47,000+ real louis Vuitton sun-glasses even though I purchased a different brand the point was that it was a knock-off.

I think you might find that it doesn't work like that. The compensation mentioned in the original thread was not for purchasers but for the proprietor.

If you purchase illegal goods you are potentially just as liable as the person who sold them to you if it can be established that you knew about it beforehand. In either instance, you would not get any compensation so could not sue the illegal vendor.

[expo09]

There probably is more to it. They may have known about it or been benefitting from it themselves.

[sigma]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...fe-harbors.ars

"According to Louis Vuitton's July 2008 complaint, Chen's companies 'were formed for and exist primarily to facilitate the promotion and advertisement of offers for counterfeit and infringing merchandise.' The ISPs hosted a huge array of sites offering fake Vuitton purses, wallets, and bags--"

Kevin

[SSHocker]

Link to full article

"They further said that Chen and his companies had been informed of the activity by Louis Vuitton but still refused to implement a policy for removing the offending sites, which was their responsibility"

If they were given information, but chose to leave the sites up, I have no sympathy for them.

[webrecs]

Here's betting that no-one will ever see the $32M ... the hosts/sites/proprietors will disappear and pop up again somewhere less litigious