Spanish Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Google Search Engine... and a Flexible Reading of Copyright Statutes?

On 3 April 2012, the Spanish Supreme Court issued a major ruling in favour of the Google search engine, including its ‘cache copy’ service: Sentencia n.172/2012, of 3 April 2012, Supreme Court, Civil Chamber.* The importance of this ruling lies not so much in the circumstances of the case (the Supreme Court was clearly disgusted by the claimant’s ‘maximalist’ petitum to shut down the whole operation of the search engine), but rather on the court going beyond the text of the Copyright Act into the general principles of the law and case law, and especially on the reading of the three-step test (in Art. 40bis TRLPI) in a positive sense so as to include all these principles. After accepting that none of the limitations listed in the Spanish Copyright statute (TRLPI) exempted the unauthorized use of fragments of the contents of a personal website through the Google search engine and cache copy service, the Supreme Court concluded against infringement, based on the grounds that the three-step test (in Art. 40bis TRLPI) is to be read not only in a negative manner but also in a positive sense so as to take into account that intellectual property – as any other kind of property – is limited in nature and must endure any ius usus inocui (harmless uses by third parties) and must abide to the general principles of the law, such as good faith and prohibition of an abusive exercise of rights (Art. 7 Spanish Civil Code).The ruling is a major success in favour of a flexible interpretation and application of the copyright statutes, especially in the scenarios raised by new technologies and market agents, and in favour of using the three-step test as a key tool to allow for it.

Internet Service Providers Liability in Spain

The article focuses on the current situation of Spanish case law on ISP liability. It starts by presenting the more salient peculiarities of the Spanish transposition of the safe harbours laid down in the E-Commerce Directive. These peculiarities relate to the knowledge requirement of the hosting safe harbour, and to the safe harbour for information location tools. The article then provides an overview of the cases decided so far with regard to each of the safe harbours. Very few cases have dealt with the mere conduit and the caching safe harbours, though the latter was discussed in an interesting case involving Google’s cache. Most cases relate to hosting and linking safe harbours. With regard to hosting, the article focuses particularly on the two judgments handed down by the Supreme Court that hold an open interpretation of actual knowledge, an issue where courts had so far been split. Cases involving the linking safe harbour have mainly dealt with websites offering P2P download links. Accordingly, the article explores the legal actions brought against these sites, which for the moment have been unsuccessful. The new legislative initiative to fight against digital piracy – the Sustainable Economy Bill – is also analyzed. After the conclusion, the article provides an Annex listing the cases that have dealt with ISP liability in Spain since the safe harbours scheme was transposed into Spanish law.

GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits?

In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right.

Domain Name Transfer before Slovak and Czech Courts

In Europe, a disagreement persists in the courts about the possibility of plaintiffs to request a domain name transfer in domain name disputes. In the last ten years, Slovak and Czech courts also produced some jurisprudence on this issue. Interestingly, the BGH’s influential opinion in the shell.de decision, which denied domain name transfer as an available remedy under German law back in 2002, wasn’t initially followed. To the contrary, several Slovak and Czech decisions of lower courts allowed a domain name transfer using two different legal bases. This seemingly settled case law was rejected a few months ago by the globtour.cz decision of the Czech Supreme Court, which refused domain name transfers for the time being

Swiss Patent Jurisprudence 2012

The new Swiss Federal Patent Court, with nationwide first-instance jurisdiction over all civil patent matters, has been operating since 1 January 2012. This article reviews and contextualizes the most important patent cases the Swiss Federal Patent Court and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. It concludes that the revamped Swiss patent litigation system has the potential of turning Switzerland into a competitive venue for the adjudication of patent matters in Europe.

Under One Umbrella: Problems of Internet Retransmissions of Broadcasts and Implications for New Audiovisual Content Services

The development of broadband Internet connections has fostered new audiovisual media services and opened new possibilities for accessing broadcasts. The Internet retransmission case of TVCatchup before the CJEU was the first case concerning new technologies in the light of Art. 3.1. of the Information Society Directive. On the other side of the Atlantic the Aereo case reached the U.S. Supreme Court and challenged the interpretation of public performance rights. In both cases the recipients of the services could receive broadcast programs in a way alternative to traditional broadcasting channels including terrestrial broadcasting or cable transmission. The Aereo case raised the debate on the possible impact of the interpretation of copyright law in the context of the development of new technologies, particularly cloud based services. It is interesting to see whether any similar problems occur in the EU. The „umbrella” in the title refers to Art. 8 WCT, which covers digital and Internet transmission and constitutes the backrgound for the EU and the U.S. legal solutions. The article argues that no international standard for qualification of the discussed services exists.

Under One Umbrella: Problems of Internet Retransmissions of Broadcasts and Implications for New Audiovisual Content Services

The development of broadband Internet connections has fostered new audiovisual media services and opened new possibilities for accessing broadcasts. The Internet retransmission case of TVCatchup before the CJEU was the first case concerning new technologies in the light of Art. 3.1. of the Information Society Directive. On the other side of the Atlantic the Aereo case reached the U.S. Supreme Court and challenged the interpretation of public performance rights. In both cases the recipients of the services could receive broadcast programs in a way alternative to traditional broadcasting channels including terrestrial broadcasting or cable transmission. The Aereo case raised the debate on the possible impact of the interpretation of copyright law in the context of the development of new technologies, particularly cloud based services. It is interesting to see whether any similar problems occur in the EU. The „umbrella” in the title refers to Art. 8 WCT, which covers digital and Internet transmission and constitutes the backrgound for the EU and the U.S. legal solutions. The article argues that no international standard for qualification of the discussed services exists.

Kontent i Pravo v. Masterhost Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment of 23 December 2008, Nr. 10962/08 Translation and Comment

This Judgment by the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation can be considered as a landmark ruling for Internet Service Provider’s (ISP) liability. The Court stipulates for the first time concise principles under which circumstances an ISP shall be exempt from liability for transmitting copyright infringing content. But due to the legislation on ISP liability in the Russian Federation it depends on the type of information which rules of liability apply to ISP. As far as a violation of intellectual property rights is claimed, the principles given now by the Supreme Arbitration Court are applicable, which basically follow the liability limitations of the so called EU E-Commerce Directive. But, furthermore, preventive measures that are provided in service provider contracts to suppress a violation through the use of services should be taken into account as well. On the other hand, as far as other information is concerned the limitations of the respective Information Law might be applicable which stipulates different liability requirements. This article gives a translation of the Supreme Arbitration Court’s decision as well as a comment on its key rulings with respect to the legal framework and on possible consequences for practice.