Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2004/09/21.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:46:19+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 980, September 21, 2004.
September 21, 2004, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 980.
9/20. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) announced that the tentative agenda for its Tuesday, September 21 meeting includes mark up of S 2560, the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004".
On July 22, the SJC held a hearing on the bill. Sen. Hatch and Sen. Leahy are the Chairman and ranking Democrat. See, story titled "Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Inducement Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 963, August 20, 2004.
On August 24, a group of opponents of the bill sent a proposed alternative version of the bill to the SJC. See, stories titled "Opponents of the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act Submit Alternative Proposal" and "Comparison of Hatch Leahy Inducement Bill and Opponents' Proposal", in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 966, August 25, 2004.
The staff of the Copyright Office (CO) has been meeting with representatives of interested groups and companies regarding revisions to the bill. On September 2 the CO released a discussion draft version of S 2560. See, story titled "Copyright Office Releases Draft Version of Inducement Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 970, September 6, 2004.
(g)(1) Inducement of Infringement -- Whoever manufactures, offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics in any product or service, such as a computer program, technology, device or component, that is a cause of individuals engaging in infringing public dissemination of copyrighted works shall be liable as an infringer where such activity: (A) relies on infringing public dissemination for its commercial viability; (B) derives a predominant portion of its revenues from infringing public dissemination; or (C) principally relies on infringing public dissemination to attract individuals to the product or service.
(2) For the purposes of this subsection, ``public dissemination´´ means digital transmission to the public of copies or phonorecords or any other exercise of any of the rights set forth in sections 106(3), 106(4), 106(5) or 106(6).
(3) Limitations on Remedies -- (A) No award of statutory damages under Section 504(c) shall be made for a violation of this subsection unless the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such violation was committed willfully. (B) In granting injunctive relief under Section 502 for a violation of this subsection, the court shall, to the extent practicable, limit the scope of the injunctive relief so as not to prevent or restrain noninfringing uses of the product or service.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious liability and contributory infringement, including any defenses thereto or any limitations on rights or remedies for infringement. Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish liability for infringement of the exclusive rights in sections 106(1) or 106(2)."
The Copyright Office released this version, along with a lengthy Explanatory Memorandum.
On September 17 a collection of interest groups and corporations wrote a letter to Sen. Hatch and Sen. Leahy expressing their opposition to the September 9 draft. They asserted that "anyone involved in the development or operation of electronic, or even physical, communication, distribution, or dissemination technologies could be strictly liable when it unknowingly derives revenue that may be small in relation to its own provision of goods and services. Perhaps most troubling, entities that participate in the Internet and other electronic space would have no way of structuring their activities to anticipate and avoid -- or even minimize -- these risks."
While the Senate Judiciary Committee has placed S 2560 on the agenda for its September 21 meeting, there are also 10 other bills, and 12 nominees, on the same agenda. The Committee typically places more items on its agenda than it actually addresses. Items are typically held over until the next meeting.
9/13. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced S 2796, an untitled bill pertaining to certification marks, collective marks, and service marks.
This bill is a reaction to the July 11, 2003 opinion [26 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) in Idaho Potato Commission v. M&M Produce Farm and Sales (also reported at 335 F.3d 130.) Sen. Craig represents the state of Idaho.
While a dispute over a potato certification mark is the impetus for this bill, certification marks are also widely used by technology groups, for example, to associate a logo with products that comply with the standards of a standards setting body. For example, Wi-FI Zone [PDF] is a certification mark of the Wi-Fi Alliance.
This bill is short. It would make two changes to the Trademark Act of 1946, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. First, it would provide that "in section 3 (15 U.S.C. 1053) in the first sentence, by striking ``protection´´ and inserting ``protections, rights, and privileges´´". Second, it would provide that "in section 4 (15 U.S.C. 1054) in the first sentence, by striking ``protection´´ and inserting ``protections, rights, and privileges´´''.
Sen. Craig (at right) stated in the Senate that "service marks are words, names, symbols, or characters that distinguish the mark holder's services, while trademarks distinguish the mark holder's goods. Collective marks are trademarks that are used by organization or association to identify goods or services produced by members of a group. The certification mark is a trade or service mark used to certify characteristics about a product or service; it may indicate that the product or service originates in a specific geographic region, or meets certain standards of quality or mode of manufacture, or the work that went into it was performed by members of an organization." See, Congressional Record, September 13, 2004, at Pages S9140-1.
He continued that "these marks all serve the same purpose -- that is, they enable the public to distinguish among products and services and prevent consumers from being deceived by similar brands. Congress determined that marks would serve the public interest by enhancing product quality and safety, and provided legal protection to these marks under the Lanham Act. The federal law protects all four kinds of marks equally; specifically, 15 U.S.C. §1503 and 15 U.S.C. §1504 provide that service marks, collective marks, and certification marks ``shall be entitled to the protection provided´´ to trademarks, except where Congress provides otherwise by statute."
"Unfortunately", said Sen. Craig, "the clarity of the Lanham Act on these points has been confused" by the Second Circuit's opinion in the Idaho Potato case.
In that case, the Idaho Potato Commission (IPC), which holds certification marks, such as "GROWN IN IDAHO", entered into a contract with the defendant in which it licensed the defendant to use its marks. The contract also provided that the defendant would not challenge the marks. Subsequently, the IPC revoked the license. The defendant continued to use the marks. Although, the defendant did not sell counterfeit Idaho potatoes. The IPC sued for infringement. The Appeals Court held that notwithstanding the no challenge provision in the contract, the defendant is not barred from challenging the validity of the mark.
The Court wrote, at page 20, that the no challenge "provision places a non-quality-control related restriction on the sellers of the certified product and other licensees that benefits the mark owner in contravention of the mark owner's obligation not to interfere with a free market for products meeting the certification criteria." The Court held that its "public interest" analysis outweighs the enforcement of contracts.
Sen. Craig stated that "The principle of equal treatment also applies to ``no challenge´´ provisions in license agreements for the use of a trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark. It is common for such agreements to include provisions under which licensees acknowledge the validity of and agree not to challenge the marks. By protecting the validity of the marks, these provisions reduce potential litigation costs for mark owners and protect the investment made by licensees. A long line of cases has upheld ``no challenge´´ provisions in trademark licenses and dismissed validity challenges."
Trademarks Confiscated by Cuba. Also, on September 20, 2004, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that its tentative agenda for its business meeting of September 21 includes consideration of S 2373, a bill to modify the prohibition on recognition by U.S. courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names. This bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), pertains to trademarks confiscated by the communist government of Cuba.
In 1998, the 105th Congress passed, and the President signed, HR 4328; it became Public Law No. 105-277. Section 211 of this act prohibits enforcement of U.S. rights to trademarks confiscated by the Cuban government, except with the consent of the legitimate owner. The EU challenged this act before the World Trade Organization (WTO), which ultimately found in favor of the U.S. on most, but not all points. S 2373 would modify Section 211 to address the WTO's ruling.
9/20. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it awarded $9 Million in grants for information technology demonstration projects as a part of its Information Technology and Evaluation Program (ITEP). See, DHS release.
9/20. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it named the prime contractor for its Electronically Managing Enterprise Resources for Government Effectiveness and Efficiency Program (also known as eMerge2). The prime contractor is BearingPoint, Inc. See, DHS release.
9/20. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS/BXA) released a statement regarding developments in the U.S's and India's Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) initiative, which addresses, among other topics, high tech trade.
9/20. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil complaint [22 pages in PDF] in U.S. District Court (EDNY) against iShopNoMarkup.com, Inc., and three of its directors and officers, alleging violation of federal securities laws in connection with iShop's purported development of an online shopping mall. The complaint alleges that "From the fall of 1999 to the summer of 2000, iShop, a start-up Internet company, defrauded over 350 investors by misrepresenting material information about the company’s operations and capital raising plans to individuals who invested approximately $2.3 million in iShop stock." It further alleges that "IShop claimed it was developing a shopping mall on the Internet to sell products directly from manufacturers to consumers at no markup. To raise capital, iShop conducted a series of purported private placement offerings and distributed confidential offering memoranda ("COMs") to investors. The COMs misrepresented, and failed to disclose, material information." The individual defendants are Anthony M. Knight, Moussa Yeroushalmi, and Scott W. Brockop. The four count complaint alleges violation of §§ 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. See also, SEC release. This case is SEC v. iShopNoMarkup.com, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, D.C. No. CV 04 4057 (DRH).
9/20. The General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report [58 pages in PDF] titled "Information Technology: FAA Has Many Investment Management Capabilities in Place, but More Oversight of Operational Systems Is Needed". The report finds that "Over the past 2 decades, individual FAA modernization projects have experienced cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls of large proportions", and that "weaknesses remain" in it management of investment in information technology resources.
9/15. The General Accounting Office (GAO) released its prepared testimony [18 pages in PDF] titled "Telecommunications: GSA Has Made Progress in Planning Governmentwide Program but Challenges Remain". This prepared testimony, which was presented by Linda Koontz at a hearing of the House Government Reform Committee, addresses the General Services Administration's (GSA) next generation governmentwide telecommunications acquisition program known as Networx.
9/20. Elizabeth Valinoti was named Legal Advisor to the Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Enforcement Bureau. The FCC stated in a release that she will be responsible for wireless, international, and homeland security issues. She has been handling broadcast indecency matters. Before joining the FCC, she worked in the Washington DC office of the law firm of Mintz Levin. She has also worked for the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA).
The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. It will consider numerous items under suspension of the rules, including HR 3632, the "Anti-Counterfeiting Amendments of 2003", sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). The House Judiciary Committee approved this bill on June 23, 2004. The House will also consider HR 5025, the "Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005", pursuant to a rule. See, Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 9:45 AM for morning business. It will then begin consideration of S 2666, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill for FY 2005.
Day two of a three day conference titled "Biometric Consortium Conference BC2004". See, conference web site. Location: Hyatt Regency Crystal City, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold an executive business meeting. The tentative agenda includes consideration of 11 bills and 12 nominees. The agenda includes S 2560, the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004". The agenda also includes S 1635, the "L-1 Visa (Intracompany Transferee) Reform Act of 2003". This bill has been placed on the Committee's agenda many times in the past, only to be held over. The agenda also includes HR 1417, the "Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004", a bill to amend the Copyright Act to replace copyright arbitration royalty panels with Copyright Royalty Judges. The House has already passed this bill. The agenda also includes S 1700, the "Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003", S 2396, the "Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004", S 2204, the "Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004", and S 2373, a bill to modify the prohibition on recognition by U.S. courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) will preside. See, notice. Press contact: Margarita Tapia (Hatch) at 202 224-5225 or David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on S 1963, the "Wireless 411 Privacy Act". The witnesses will be Dennis Strigl (P/CEO of Verizon Wireless), Steve Largent (P/CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association), Patrick Cox (CEO of Qsent, Inc.), Marc Rotenberg (Electronic Privacy Information Center), and Kathleen Pierz (The Pierz Group). Location: Room 253, Russell building.
The House will meet at 10:00 AM. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will consider numerous non-controversial and non-technology related items (such as HRes 761, congratulating Lance Armstrong for winning the Tour de France) under suspension of the rules. See, Republican Whip Notice.
Day three of a three day conference titled "Biometric Consortium Conference BC2004". Under Secretary of Homeland Security Asa Hutchinson will speak at 11:45 AM in Ballroom E. See, conference web site. Location: Hyatt Regency Crystal City, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day conference hosted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) titled "90th Anniversary Symposium". See, agenda. Location: FTC, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.
9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a business meeting. The agenda includes consideration several bills, including S 1963, the "Wireless 411 Privacy Act", S 1380, the "Rural Universal Service Equity Act of 2003", S 2145, "The Spy Block Act", and S ___, a public safety spectrum bill. The agenda also includes consideration of the nominations of Deborah Majoras and Jonathan Liebowitz to be Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC); both currently hold recess appointments. Press contact: David Wonnenberg at 202 224-2670 or david_wonnenberg @commerce.senate.gov. Location: Room 253, Russell building.
9:30 AM. Black Box Voting, a group opposed to the use of technology in tabulating votes in elections, will hold a press conference. For more information, contact Vickie Karp at 512 775-3737. Location: Zenger Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing titled "Problems with the E-rate Program: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns in the Wiring of Our Nation's Schools to the Internet". This is the third in a series of hearings. Press contact: Larry Neal at 202 225-5735. See, notice. This hearing will be webcast by the Committee. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled "A Review of Counter-Terrorism Legislation and Proposals, including the USA PATRIOT Act and the SAFE Act". The USA PATRIOT Act is the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". It was passed by the 107th Congress as HR 3162. It became Public Law 107-56 on October 26, 2001. The SAFE Act is S 1709, the "Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003". It was introduced by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) on October 2, 2003. See, story titled "Senators Craig and Durbin Introduce Bill to Modify PATRIOT Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 753, October 6, 2003. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) will preside. See, notice. Press contact: Margarita Tapia (Hatch) at 202 224-5225 or David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Administrative Law Judge Stephen McGuire will hear oral argument in In Re Rambus Incorporated, Docket No. 9302. Location: Room 532, FTC main building, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
2:00 PM. The House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census will hold a hearing titled "Information Security". Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Orson Swindle will testify. Location: Room 2167, Rayburn Building.
3:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on judicial nominations. Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) will preside. See, notice. Press contact: Margarita Tapia (Hatch) at 202 224-5225 or David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
4:00 - 5:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion titled "International Trade Policy and the 2004 Presidential Campaign". The speakers will be Grant Aldonas (Under Secretary for International Trade at the Department of Commerce) and Lael Brainard (Brookings Institution). See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.
6:00 PM. Reception (6:00 PM) and dinner (7:00 PM) associated with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) conference titled "90th Anniversary Symposium". The dinner speaker will be Judge Richard Posner. See, agenda. Location: JW Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
9:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold an executive business meeting. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) will preside. See, notice. Press contact: Margarita Tapia (Hatch) at 202 224-5225 or David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The House Education and Workforce Committee's Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness will hold a hearing titled "Are Current Safeguards Protecting Taxpayers Against Diploma Mills". The hearing will be webcast by the Committee. Location: Room 2175, Rayburn Building.

References: v. 
 § 1051
 §1503
 §1504
 § 10
 v.