Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    540

    Exclamation Web Host Ordered To Pay $32M For Contributing To Trademark Infringement

    Quote 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
    Host to avoid at all costs - Real Web Host

    Mouse potato - The online generations version of a couch potato

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    242
    that's pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing it!
    Jon Stephenson

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    587
    If the hosts knew that the sites were there and didn't take them down, that's the price they pay.
    I'm part of the Chicago Breast Cancer 3 Day!
    Because Everyone Deserves a Lifetime.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,920
    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?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    367
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    1,307
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,027
    Quote Originally Posted by ldcdc View Post
    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.
    WLVPN.com NetProtect owned White Label VPN provider
    Increase your hosting profits by adding VPN to your product line up

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    245
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by GigeWeb View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by expo09 View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by GigeWeb View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    215
    There probably is more to it. They may have known about it or been benefitting from it themselves.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,306
    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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Darwin, Australia
    Posts
    1,339
    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.
    Web Hosting Plus
    Premium Australian Web Hosting

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    11
    Here's betting that no-one will ever see the $32M ... the hosts/sites/proprietors will disappear and pop up again somewhere less litigious

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,612
    Yea right like this guy is actually going to pay that...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,612
    If he had 32 million to pay..he wouldnt be hosting fake counterfeit sites in the first place.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    447
    There is no way this guy will pay out. However, it will definitely make wind his neck in.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NYC / Memphis, TN
    Posts
    1,454
    Louis Vuitton claimed that Chen and his hosting companies were contributing to the illegal activities by providing the infrastructure that enabled the sale of counterfeit goods. 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.
    I agree.. If they were properly informed then they asked for it. They'll just bankrupt probably. I seriously doubt they have 32 million lying around.
    PeakVPN.Com | Complete Privacy VPN | Cloud Hosting | Guaranteed Security | 1Gbps-10Gbps Unmetered
    PeakVPN | 31 VPN Servers | 17-Years Experience | Emergency 24/7 Support
    Visit us @ PeakVPN.Com (Coming SOON) | ASN: 3915

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New York, US
    Posts
    490
    Interestingly according to their AUP, that kind of thing is prohibited. I wonder if they included it just to cover their tracks.

    http://pastie.org/605287 <-- translated AUP.
    Brook Hollow Brands

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Auckland - New Zealand
    Posts
    1,575
    The point being, that the Jury expect an ISP to actually enforce their AUP or TOS, not just hide behind it

    Does seem a tad excessive US$32 million, I think the world has gone mad ..

  22. #22
    Is this a small time host that is being sued? Man it would suck to be in that boat. I'm betting his is getting ready to file for bankruptcy. Poor guy.
    Download my eBook + Videos: Starting your own successful web hosting company.
    Learn from a web host with 7 years of experience.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Auckland - New Zealand
    Posts
    1,575
    Also note, that the plaintiffs here paid lawyers gazillions of $$ to find a loop-hole to get around the safe-harbor provision in the DMCA.. they actually got the award for 'Contributory trademark violation'.

    The copyright laws/trademark laws need an overhaul.

    The arguement that an ISP is not judge and jury, is correct. They aren't, but sadly, look at ISP's like this one and IINet who were in trouble for peer to peer content sharde on their network. Section 92a was vigourously opposed in nz when parliament tried to push it through this last year, but voices were heard and they were forced to abandon it how it was and look at other ways to implement it.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,745
    That is My Dedicated Server Provider
    Last edited by respite; 09-03-2009 at 09:46 PM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,745
    Akanoc Solutions Inc., Managed Solutions Group Inc
    http://akanoc.com <-- Chinese Brand
    http://dediwebhost.com <-- American Brand
    http://racklogic.com <-- Lowend server configs sales

    Also one other brand for colo sales... I cannot remember it though...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What to do with a domain trademark infringement?
    By ScottJ in forum Running a Web Hosting Business
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-12-2006, 08:08 PM
  2. Trademark Infringement on my domain?
    By CarlU in forum Domain Names
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-27-2006, 06:19 AM
  3. is this a case of trademark infringement?
    By grabmail in forum Running a Web Hosting Business
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-09-2006, 07:32 PM
  4. RackSpace banner. Trademark infringement?
    By macdonaldp in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-13-2005, 02:36 PM
  5. Trademark Infringement on a domain name
    By gordonw in forum Domain Names
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 07:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •