Source: http://blog.internetcases.com/page/75/
Timestamp: 2019-02-19 04:08:50
Document Index: 22442167

Matched Legal Cases: ['§13211', '§13218', '§19', '§19', '§7701', '§7707']

Chicago technology and intellectual property attorney Evan Brown - Page 75
InternetCases.com Podcast — July 22, 2005
This entry was posted in Podcasts on July 22, 2005 by Evan Brown (@internetcases).
Has Microsoft forgotten to file a trademark application for the name of its new operating system?
Microsoft has announced that the name of its new operating system coming out next year will be called “Vista.” As of the date of this posting, a search of the records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office reveals no applications on file for the mark VISTA owned by Microsoft. Is this an oversight or merely a consequence of the several day backlog for getting information about new applications online? Perhaps it’s just a load date issue.
Further: More observations on this subject over at Infamy or Praise.
And further: Dennis Crouch over at Patently-O has a this post on the delay one finds in the world of patent applications.
This entry was posted in Trademarks on July 22, 2005 by Evan Brown (@internetcases).
Section 230 of Communications Decency Act shields websites from defamation liability
Plaintiff Whitney Information Network sued various defendants that publish websites which purport to provide consumers with an outlet to report dishonest companies. Whitney claimed it had been harmed from the defendants’ reckless publication of false stories about its business. It alleged various causes of action against the defendants, including defamation per se of business reputation.
The defendants moved to dismiss the defamation claim, arguing that Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act shielded them from liability for defamation. That portion of the act provides that, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
The court found that the defendants did not write the messages that appeared on their websites. Instead, visitors to the website submitted the information. Accordingly, the court dismissed the defamation claim, holding that the “Defendants are a service provider as they publish information by consumers on their website.”
Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2005 WL 1677256 (M.D.Fla., Jul 14, 2005).
This entry was posted in Defamation on July 21, 2005 by Evan Brown (@internetcases).
This entry was posted in Copyright, Privacy on July 20, 2005 by Evan Brown (@internetcases).
If the CIA cares about the environment, it apparently doesn’t want you to know about it
Court holds that CIA violated provision of Energy Policy Act, ordering publication of information regarding acquisition of alternative fuel vehicles.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. §13211 et seq., requires federal agencies to purchase a minimum number of alternative fuel vehicles (“AFVs”) when adding to their fleets of automobiles. To ensure compliance with this environmentally-friendly requirement, 42 U.S.C. §13218 calls for federal agencies to prepare annual reports to Congress summarizing their compliance with the AFV purchasing requirements. These annual reports must be posted “on a publicly available website on the Internet.” 42 U.S.C. 13218(b)(3).
For the past six years, the CIA has apparently been too busy with the war on terror and other pressing matters to concern itself with the reporting requirements of the Energy Policy Act. Certain environmental groups noticed this, and filed suit in federal court in California, claiming that the agency (and 12 other agencies as well) had failed to properly make the AFV compliance information available online.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the failure of the various agencies to meet the reporting requirements. Although the court denied the motion as to the other 12 agencies (their reporting was at least somewhat sufficient), the court found that the CIA “essentially conceded that it failed to prepare or publish any compliance reports required under the [Energy Policy] Act.”
Accordingly, the court held that the CIA had not met its reporting obligations under the Act, and ordered it to publish on the Internet no later than January 31, 2006 information regarding its acquisition of AFVs during the past six years.
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dept. of Energy et al., 2005 WL 1656881 (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2005).
This entry was posted in Miscellaneous on July 19, 2005 by Evan Brown (@internetcases).
This entry was posted in Ethics on July 15, 2005 by Evan Brown (@internetcases).
Leaving a thin slice: CAN-SPAM does not completely preempt Washington state law
Plaintiff Gordon sued defendant Impulse Marketing, an apparent source of unwanted email. Gordon brought the lawsuit in federal court, but alleged violations of the state of Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Statute, RCW §19.190 et seq. and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, RCW §19.86 et seq.
Impulse moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. §7701 et seq., preempted the state statutes under which Gordon had brought the suit. The court rejected Impulse’s argument and denied the motion.
By its own terms, the CAN-SPAM Act “supersedes” any state law that “expressly regulates the use of email to send commercial messages.” 15 U.S.C. §7707(b)(1). That same provision, however, states that the Act does not supersede state laws to the extent that those laws “prohibit falsity or deception” in an email message or its attachments.
The court looked at the prohibitions of the Washington statutes and concluded that the plain language of the CAN-SPAM Act did not support Impulse’s preemption argument. The state Commercial Electronic Mail Statute prohibits “misrepresentation” and the use of “false or misleading information” in the course of sending email messages. The state Consumer Protection Act makes it illegal to send an email message with “false or misleading information in the subject line.” Accordingly, the CAN-SPAM Act did not preempt these provisions, as they serve to prohibit “falsity or deception.”
Gordon v. Impulse Marketing Group, Inc., 2005 WL 1619847 (E.D. Wash., July 11, 2005).
This entry was posted in Spam on July 14, 2005 by Evan Brown (@internetcases).
InternetCases.com Podcast — July 8, 2005
This entry was posted in Podcasts on July 8, 2005 by Evan Brown (@internetcases).
This entry was posted in Copyright on July 7, 2005 by Evan Brown (@internetcases).
This entry was posted in Copyright on June 27, 2005 by Evan Brown (@internetcases).