A German court ordered Google to install filters on its YouTube services in Germany in order to detect and stop people from accessing copyright infringing material.
While not holding Google fully liable for the uploaded material, Judge Heiner Steeneck did say that the company needed to do more to stop violations. The court order issued on April 20, 2012, however, is for Google a happy departure from the request made by GEMA, the German association that imposes and collects royalties on recorded media. GEMA had demanded that Google sort through its entire online music archive and remove all copyrighted material from its system. The judge rejected the request.
A German court ordered Google to install filters on its YouTube services in Germany in order to detect and stop people from accessing copyright infringing material. While not holding Google fully liable for the uploaded material, Judge Heiner Steeneck did say...
If the day comes that Facebook applies to register “book” as a trademark, is the USPTO likely to reject its application? Perhaps Facebook is better off leaving that question open rather than documenting any USPTO denial.
Does Facebook actually even use “book” as a mark as its new user agreement implies? If it does, is “book” sufficiently arbitrary, and not just descriptive, such that it can be recognized as a protectable mark? What is truly a “book” anyway in the technology of today’s publishing? We could quickly get philosophical.
If the day comes that Facebook applies to register “book” as a trademark, is the USPTO likely to reject its application? Perhaps Facebook is better off leaving that question open rather than documenting any USPTO denial. Does Facebook actually even use...
Recent Comments