LES Russia Seminar “The Internet and Intellectual Property”
On 25 November 2003, the seminar “The Internet and Intellectual Property” organised by LES Russia was held at the premises of the law firm Gorodissky & Partners.
25 November 2003
On 25 November 2003, the seminar “The Internet and Intellectual Property” organised by LES Russia was held at the premises of the law firm Gorodissky & Partners. The seminar was attended by 38 participants from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
Opening the seminar, Vice President of LES Russia V.N. Medvedev noted the widespread penetration of the Internet into all areas of human activity and the growing importance of resolving legal issues related to intellectual property on the Internet. The relevance of this issue was confirmed by the interest shown in the seminar by patent attorneys, lawyers, advocates, specialists in computer technologies and the Internet, and others.
The first presentation was given by I.N. Motsny, a lawyer at ElcomSoft, a company widely known even among non-specialists following its successful court proceedings in the United States involving the company’s programmer Mr Sklyarov and concerning copyright on the Internet. In his presentation “Copyright Protection on the Internet”, Mr Motsny spoke about the main problems of copyright protection on the Internet, including the ease of distribution of copyrighted works, the identical nature of copies and originals, the difficulty of combating copyright infringement on the Internet, the local nature of law enforcement practice compared with the global nature of the Internet, and other issues.
The speaker gave a brief overview of existing international legislation in this field, as well as legislation in the United States, the European Union and the Russian Federation. He examined in detail how the issue of Internet service provider liability for copyright infringements committed by their clients is addressed abroad and in the Russian Federation. In conclusion, the speaker discussed the draft law on amendments and additions to the Law of the Russian Federation on Copyright and Related Rights. The numerous questions addressed to the speaker demonstrated the audience’s strong interest in the issues raised and in law enforcement practice relating to their resolution.
The second speaker, A.A. Osokin, an advocate actively practising in the fields of copyright and industrial property, gave a presentation entitled “Distribution of Information on the Internet: Law Enforcement Issues”. The speaker’s main idea was the need, at the very least, to adapt existing law enforcement practices to such revolutionary technological changes as the Internet. Mr Osokin noted the issue of whether a hyperlink leading to another website containing information that infringes the rights of a third party may itself constitute copyright infringement. The case of the Ad Marginem publishing house against Chernov was cited as an example. It was concluded that, at that time, it was not possible to hold the owner of a website containing such a hyperlink liable for copyright infringement.
Another issue related to hyperlinks is the dissemination, by means of such hyperlinks, of information damaging honour, dignity and business reputation. As an example, a court decision was cited in which the court upheld a claim and found the defendant liable for disseminating such information by means of a hyperlink to another website. As a recommendation for combating the unlawful use of hyperlinks, Mr Osokin suggested applying a so-called preventive injunction prohibiting actions that create a threat of infringement of rights. In his view, such claims could be quite effective in the Russian Federation. The questions raised and examples of law enforcement practice provided by seminar participants demonstrated different approaches to resolving this issue, as well as a certain rapid adaptation of Russian courts to the involvement of the Internet in proceedings “as a third party”.
The final presentation, “Conflict Between Trademark Rights and Domain Names: Evolution of Judicial Practice”, was delivered by M.V. Chizhenok, an advocate actively practising in the fields of trademarks and copyright. The speaker analysed the evolution of existing law enforcement practice in this area and identified a certain pattern of increasing complexity in judicial practice. In recent years, Russian courts have proceeded on the basis that even if a domain name is similar or identical to a registered trademark, this alone is insufficient to establish infringement. Courts examine whether the domain name and trademark are confusingly similar, whether the relevant services are similar, and whether there has been an abuse of trademark rights. In addition, the presentation analysed the role of the RosNIIROS service provider in court proceedings. As examples of the evolution of the law, Mr Chizhenok cited court decisions involving the domain names mosfilm.ru, kodak.ru, nivea.ru, quelle.ru, coca-cola.ru, kamaz.ru, romashka.ru and others. Numerous questions were addressed to the speaker. The issue of courts examining the similarity of services associated with a domain name and a trademark proved particularly controversial.
It is worth noting that all the presentations generated equally strong interest among the seminar participants. Given the dynamics of law enforcement practice in this area, the Society may return to this topic at one of its forthcoming seminars or conferences.
On 25 November 2003, the seminar “The Internet and Intellectual Property” organised by LES Russia was held at the premises of the law firm Gorodissky & Partners. The seminar was attended by 38 participants from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
Opening the seminar, Vice President of LES Russia V.N. Medvedev noted the widespread penetration of the Internet into all areas of human activity and the growing importance of resolving legal issues related to intellectual property on the Internet. The relevance of this issue was confirmed by the interest shown in the seminar by patent attorneys, lawyers, advocates, specialists in computer technologies and the Internet, and others.
The first presentation was given by I.N. Motsny, a lawyer at ElcomSoft, a company widely known even among non-specialists following its successful court proceedings in the United States involving the company’s programmer Mr Sklyarov and concerning copyright on the Internet. In his presentation “Copyright Protection on the Internet”, Mr Motsny spoke about the main problems of copyright protection on the Internet, including the ease of distribution of copyrighted works, the identical nature of copies and originals, the difficulty of combating copyright infringement on the Internet, the local nature of law enforcement practice compared with the global nature of the Internet, and other issues.
The speaker gave a brief overview of existing international legislation in this field, as well as legislation in the United States, the European Union and the Russian Federation. He examined in detail how the issue of Internet service provider liability for copyright infringements committed by their clients is addressed abroad and in the Russian Federation. In conclusion, the speaker discussed the draft law on amendments and additions to the Law of the Russian Federation on Copyright and Related Rights. The numerous questions addressed to the speaker demonstrated the audience’s strong interest in the issues raised and in law enforcement practice relating to their resolution.
The second speaker, A.A. Osokin, an advocate actively practising in the fields of copyright and industrial property, gave a presentation entitled “Distribution of Information on the Internet: Law Enforcement Issues”. The speaker’s main idea was the need, at the very least, to adapt existing law enforcement practices to such revolutionary technological changes as the Internet. Mr Osokin noted the issue of whether a hyperlink leading to another website containing information that infringes the rights of a third party may itself constitute copyright infringement. The case of the Ad Marginem publishing house against Chernov was cited as an example. It was concluded that, at that time, it was not possible to hold the owner of a website containing such a hyperlink liable for copyright infringement.
Another issue related to hyperlinks is the dissemination, by means of such hyperlinks, of information damaging honour, dignity and business reputation. As an example, a court decision was cited in which the court upheld a claim and found the defendant liable for disseminating such information by means of a hyperlink to another website. As a recommendation for combating the unlawful use of hyperlinks, Mr Osokin suggested applying a so-called preventive injunction prohibiting actions that create a threat of infringement of rights. In his view, such claims could be quite effective in the Russian Federation. The questions raised and examples of law enforcement practice provided by seminar participants demonstrated different approaches to resolving this issue, as well as a certain rapid adaptation of Russian courts to the involvement of the Internet in proceedings “as a third party”.
The final presentation, “Conflict Between Trademark Rights and Domain Names: Evolution of Judicial Practice”, was delivered by M.V. Chizhenok, an advocate actively practising in the fields of trademarks and copyright. The speaker analysed the evolution of existing law enforcement practice in this area and identified a certain pattern of increasing complexity in judicial practice. In recent years, Russian courts have proceeded on the basis that even if a domain name is similar or identical to a registered trademark, this alone is insufficient to establish infringement. Courts examine whether the domain name and trademark are confusingly similar, whether the relevant services are similar, and whether there has been an abuse of trademark rights. In addition, the presentation analysed the role of the RosNIIROS service provider in court proceedings. As examples of the evolution of the law, Mr Chizhenok cited court decisions involving the domain names mosfilm.ru, kodak.ru, nivea.ru, quelle.ru, coca-cola.ru, kamaz.ru, romashka.ru and others. Numerous questions were addressed to the speaker. The issue of courts examining the similarity of services associated with a domain name and a trademark proved particularly controversial.
It is worth noting that all the presentations generated equally strong interest among the seminar participants. Given the dynamics of law enforcement practice in this area, the Society may return to this topic at one of its forthcoming seminars or conferences.
See also
