We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 23

Digital Economy Bill: dealing with online copyright infringers

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 11 2010

The introduction of a Digital Economy Bill was announced in the Queens Speech on 18 November

German Federal Court of Justice finds that without right holders’ consent online private video recording services are only legal in very specific circumstances

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Germany
  • -
  • December 14 2009

The German Federal Court of Justice ("Bundesgerichtshof" "FCJ") recently ruled on the legitimacy of online video recording services

Game over for a 'powerful & energetic' internet seller?

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 30 2007

On 18 October 2006, Judge Fysh handed down judgment in a case between the Japanese electronics company, KK Sony Computer Entertainment & Anor ("Sony"), and a Hong Kong company, Pacific Game Technology (Holding) Ltd ("Pacific"

Regional Court of Hamburg decides that online TV service Zattoo is illegal without right holders’ consent collecting societies’ and broadcasters’ consent is irrelevant

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Germany
  • -
  • December 14 2009

In a dispute between film studios Warner and Universal against the German offering zattoo.de of online TV service Zattoo, the Regional Court Hamburg decided on 8 April 2009 (ref. no. 308 O 66008) that zattoo.de must not retransmit TV content without the consent of the original right holders

First Swedish information orders case overturned on appeal

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Sweden
  • -
  • October 27 2009

Following the Swedish implementation in April of the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive, the Solna District Court issued Sweden’s first order requiring an ISP to disclose the identity of the user behind an IP address alleged to have been used for activities infringing copyright

Brussels court refers two questions to the ECJ on injunctions against ISPs over illegal P2P file sharing

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Belgium
  • -
  • May 10 2010

In a case between the collecting society SABAM and internet service provider Scarlet, relating to the measures which can be imposed on Scarlet to prevent illegal peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing over its network, the Brussels Court of Appeal has referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) two questions about the legality (including a test of proportionality) of the injunctions requested by SABAM

Advocate General's opinion in the three French Google keyword references

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • European Union, France
  • -
  • September 23 2009

The Advocate General delivered his widely anticipated opinion today in three references to the European Court of Justice involving whether the AdWords system operated by Google amounted to trade mark infringement

Calls in Hong Kong for tighter control of user generated content

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Hong Kong
  • -
  • April 28 2008

A recent incident involving Hong Kong starlet, Edison Chen, has raised questions about how Hong Kong legislation controls user generated content

Injunctions against ISPs - the SabamScarlet ruling

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Belgium
  • -
  • October 23 2007

The President of the Brussels Court of First Instance (the ‘President’) ruled on 29 June 2007 that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) active in the Belgian market must implement technical measures to prevent illegal peer-to-peer music file exchanges

Paris Court of Appeal holds that Dailymotion is a host and did not have knowledge of infringing material

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • France
  • -
  • October 27 2009

The Paris Court of Appeal has held, overruling a previous First Instance Court decision, that the Dailymotion video sharing website was not liable for copyright infringement since it had not received adequate notification that content posted to its website by users was unlawful