An Internet Bill of Rights?

Governments across the world are increasingly under pressure from privacy advocates and some consumers to better regulate the use of personal data on line. Under Ed Vaizey's proposed plan announced last week, Google and Facebook and other social media networks and search engines would be required to sign up to a new code under which consumers would be able to get redress if they feel their privacy has been invaded.

The UK government is in discussions with the ICO, Information Commissioners Office, about how to develop such a code. What this will mean for advertisers using social media is as yet unclear though Ed Vaizey likened this idea to the mediation service offered by the Press Complaints Commission, which is both worrying and perhaps reassuring since the PCC is not renowned as particularly effective means of redress for consumers but is totally self regulated by the newspaper industry. Thus we might be led to assume that the search engines are being asked to run their own such self regulatory body. Given the lack of funds in the public purse one can assume this to be the case. No doubt Google will argue that it already has means for consumers to complain and seek redress. The cost of establishing and maintaining an independent body offering a complaints and mediation service would be colossal and without funding it seems unlikely this idea will take off in the immediate future.

What would it mean though for website owners and major brands?

The government wants major websites to sign up to a code which is advertised on the home page of that site with a direct link through to the Code and a 'simple' explanation of how to complain. This proposal is similar in many ways to the IAB UK's Best Practice Principles for on line advertising community and their call for an icon to be placed along side any advertising served to a user by means of behavioural targeting. However the industry should resist too many such icons and links. There is a danger of a ludicrous proliferation of information, which we already know tends to confuse consumers rather than help. there is also already an inevitable need to have links to complicated privacy policies, marketing codes, promotional terms and conditions.

There is little doubt that transparency is already key to ensuring compliance with data protection legislation but it will be interesting to see if any industry body or indeed the ICO, will get any additional powers to enforce punishment on those that breach the new code. As it is the ICO had  limited powers to fine for serious breaches of the Data Protection Act, though those powers were extended in April 2010. The ICO can now impose a fine of up to £500,000. It is unlikely that an industry led body will have sanctions involving the power to fine.

To date regulators in the UK have taken a fairly pragmatic and sensible approach to privacy on the Internet. However Europe is taking a firmer view and we shall have to await further decisions on Google's harvesting of data during its Street view mapping and in relation to on line behavioural advertising. The advice to advertisers in the on line environment is to take care and be transparent. For a summary of issues and best practice guides see our Social Media Marketing Guidance Note.

AdWords - the latest clarification from the ECJ

Following the ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Google's Adwords policy in the Louis Vuitton case, which we wrote about in March, a new decision dealing with the problems associated with AdWords was handed down yesterday in the case Portakabin Ltd v Primakabin BV, Case C-558/08.

Portakabin build and supply mobile buildings and own the trademark for "Portakabin" in that market sector in the Benelux countries. Primakabin, a seller and lessor of new and second-hand mobile buildings, including legitimate second-hand Portakabin buildings, used the word "Portakabin" and some similar misspelled variants as keywords on Google's AdWords. Portakabin sued for trademark infringement and, after passing through the Dutch courts, a number of questions were subsequently referred to the ECJ.

The judgment reiterates one of the main decisions in the Louis Vuitton case: that advertisers who use competitor's trademarks as "keywords", must make it clear in the advertisement that there is no commercial connection between the advertiser and the proprietor of the trademark. This case goes on state that, unless this is done, there is no defence under Article 6 of the Trademark Directive (which in essence allows third parties to use trademarks to indicate the origin of products provided that such use is in accordance with honest commercial practices).  

However this latest decision also makes clear that re-sellers of second-hand products can use third party trademarks as keywords, provided that it is clear from their website that they only sell "used" or "second-hand" products manufactured by the trademark owner and providing that the manner by which he sells those products does not risks seriously damaging the reputation of the trademark owner or his mark.

This latest decision also confirms that misspellings of trademark names constitute signs which are similar to the trademark, and therefore the usual rules of analysis apply: notably, is there a likelihood of confusion?

All very helpful, and we now await the ECJ's ruling in the Marks & Spencer v Interflora case which will analyse issues on dilution and the free-riding on the distinctive character of the trademark.

Google on a litigation roll

Google is celebrating yet another significant litigation victory today, after a federal judge in New York ruled in favour of Google in the $1 billion claim made against them by Viacom. This follows Google's recent victory in March this year in the case brought by Louis Vuitton about AdWords (see our Ad Guide).

Viacom sued Google in 2006, after its purchase of YouTube, on the basis that Google knowingly allowed copyright protected material, such as Viacom's programmes, to be used on the YouTube website without permission and was thus infringing Viacom's copyright. Viacom claimed Google was liable for "massive intentional copyright infringement" but the judge ruled that Google could not be held liable for having a general awareness that infringing material may be uploaded onto the site. In his decision, he stated that YouTube's "notify and take down" policy allowed Google safe harbour protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, and therefore dismissed Viacom's suit in summary judgment.

These two victories are certainly very useful to Google. The victory against Louis Vuitton allows them to retain their very lucrative AdWords search advertising policy, and this latest success seems to confirm YouTube as the world's pre-eminent video-sharing site, with all the revenue raising possibilities that this entails.