1.

Introduction

The Internet has been the most revolutionary development of the 20 th century and has influenced our lives more then anything else. Through its wide-ranging and universal appeal it has greatly modified the leisure and shopping habits of consumers as the falling price of Internet access and personal computers gives almost universal access to the World Wide Web. With the advent of smartphones, laptops and tablets we can carry the Internet everywhere we go. The Internets popularity makes it one of the most powerful marketing platforms. Businesses, probably rightly, see the Internet as a very strong growth area which will take over from more traditional types of commerce. But, as Stan Lee famously said: With great power there must also come great responsibility1 as legislation that regulates Internet is still in infancy and provisions of natural law do not cope well with regulating the online market. In regard to Intellectual Property and the Internet, right holders have recognised that their rights have been increasingly infringed in proportion to the Internets growth. Infringers have shown great ingenuity in exploiting their growing Internet opportunities, for example, in respect to copyright, Peer2Peer programs have proven to be a very effective tool of infringing and have given birth to a significant bundle of case law2. Trade marks are key elements of businesses in the sense that their importance does not only lie in their standard definition of distinguishing goods and services from companies from each other as they have a very important social meaning, and especially concerning well known brands, they are a modus vivendi. Because people are social creatures, wearing a certain brand attaches them to a certain group with a certain lifestyle and certain characteristics. Trade marks also convey to the consumer a concept of quality, reliability and safety. As part of Intellectual Property, trade marks are protected on national level and on international level. In the UK, they are

1 2

Stan Lee Twentieth Century Fox et al v Newsbin Ltd [2010] F.S.R 21, Twentieh Century Fox et al v BT [2011] EWHC 1981 1

protected by the Trade Mark Act3 (TMA), at Community level by the Community Trade Mark Regulation4 (CTMR). Their protection is extended to their use on the Internet, as trade marks fall foul to infringing practices. Corporations have nurtured and developed trademarks over sometimes long periods of time with great investment in their development. As such, trade marks often have great value and corporations will carry them as significant assets in their balance sheets. Naturally businesses are quick to litigate in protection of their trade marks. Thus, Courts have been criticised of being over zealous in granting trademark protection.5 This piece is going to critically discuss how the Internet has influenced the protection of Trade marks in connection to issues that have arisen from their use concerning domain names, online marketplaces and search engines as well as discussing the outcome of recent case law that might jeopardise traditional trade mark rationales.

2.Domain name battles

Along with the Internet, domain names appeared. They are addresses on the Internet. They have a real estate character meaning that only one person or organization can own that one domain name at a certain time but unlike real property they are not confined within geographical limits, which makes it harder for a certain jurisdiction to apply its law upon them. Concerning intellectual property law it has been said that trade marks are the best comparison to domain names, but not without problems as trade mark law is territorial and domains are global and because there cannot be two identical domain names.6 In the real world, there is no numerological limit to businesses that are entitled to use the same name but on the Internet, this is
3 4

Trade Mark Act 1994 Council Regulation No. 207/2009 of February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) 5 Charlote Waelde, Trade Marks and Domain Names. Theres a Lot in a Name in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (eds), Law and the Internet: A framework for electronic commerce (HART Publishing 2000) 6 Jaqueline Lipton, Internet Domain Names, Trademarks and Free Speech (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd 2010) 2

not possible because there can be one domain carrying that particular name. This has led to disputes since the internet domain name assignment works on a first come, first served7 rational as more then one person/business claimed they had the right to own a certain domain name, which leads to what is called domain name envy8 as in the case of prince.com9. Disputes have also arisen due to the relationship between domain names, trade marks and the phenomenon called cybersquatting. Cybersquatting is the practice of opportunists of registering domains consisting of the names, or very similar names, of some famous or reputable registered trade marks with the intention to sell them to the owners of the registered trade marks for a profit or, in the case of domain names similar to the registered trade mark, to take advantage of the prestige of the mark in order to attract traffic and sales to the similarly named domain. 10 On the other hand, in order to protect their brands online, some businesses have been over zealous and engaged in aggressive campaigns of preventing, even sometimes without justification, other Internet users from using any interpretation of their registered trade mark, event known as reverse domain hijacking.11 These practices have influenced trade mark protection so that Courts had found themselves in the situation of reinterpreting provisions so that they match the uniqueness of the Internet. Also, probably because of the novelty that it presented, there have been issues about keeping Intellectual property within reasonable limits as there seems to have been a tendency of the Court to change the protection granted to a trade mark from being based on the specificity of goods and services for which it is registered to the domain itself, at least when well known brands are involved.12 As a result, it broadens the monopoly granted to registered trade marks to the detriment of the legitimate

7 8

ibid Charlote Waelde, Trade Marks and Domain Names. Theres a Lot in a Name in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (n 5) 135 9 Prince plc v Primce Sports Group Inc [1998] FSR 21 10 Charlote Waelde, Trade Marks and Domain Names. Theres a Lot in a Name in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (n 5) 135-136 11 ibid 136 12 ibid138 3

interests of millions of small businesses that become disadvantaged.13 The tendency to over protect well-known marks has been also witnessed in the area of domain name dispute resolution procedure with the adoption of UDRP14 in 1999 by ICANN15. It has been argued that the consequences of this development is that little else has been done to protect other interests of domain names such as free speech, privacy and personality rights and that there is little guidance to how the rights to a domain of two legitimate trade mark holders should be assessed.16 We shall move on to a more in depth

analysis of these issues in the light of UK and Community case law as well as trademark protection under Alternative Dispute Resolution.

2.1 Analysis

Trade marks and domain names are two distinct entities. As mentioned before, a trade mark represents a brand, it distinguishes goods and services from businesses from each other, whereas domain names are just addresses that identify websites on the Internet. Bearing that in mind, in the course of litigation it seems that Courts have blurred that differentiation line with little concern for the implications. 17 In the UK, it has been said that Jacob J is well known in his crusade to keep intellectual property within reasonable limits, in particular in that the monopoly conferred by each of the rights should not extend too far.18 This was the outcome of Avnet19 where the balance was struck under Section 10 (1) of the TMA so that a trade mark does not give the right to a domain name and as the only way to challenge the ownership of a domain lawfully owned by
13 14

ibid 170 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers http://www.icann.org/ 15 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers http://www.icann.org/ 16 Lipton (n 6) xvii 17 Charlote Waelde, Trade Marks and Domain Names. Theres a Lot in a Name in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (n 5) 137 18 ibid 139 19 Avnet Inc v Isoact Limited [1998] FSR 16 4

a business with the same trade mark as plaintiffs is when the goods and services for the plaintiffs trade mark are registered for are identical with the goods and services traded on the website.20 Also, Jacob J made remarks in relationship with infringement that might take place under Section 10(2) of the TMA on the likelihood of confusion brought about by this provision. He argued that the issue is not whether Isoact would compete with Avnet but whether there will be confusion over search engine hits on the word Avnet. He dismissed this proposition as it is easy to see that the goods sold on the website are not electronic products but aviation products. The outcome is that there is no confusion about the origin of goods, simply confusion over search engine hits that he believes it is not a matter of trade mark law.21 Still, the European Court of Justice held that in determining liability under Section 10 (2) the most important factor is reputation. As the outcome of Cannon22, it can be said that the more distinctive and reputable a brand is it will be afforded more protection over a bigger range of goods and services. It seems that similarity is assessed through the marks distinctiveness and reputation. Moreover, the judgement in Cannon read together with the judgement in Sabel v Puma23 where the Court of Justice found that the likelihood of association is a subtest of the likelihood of confusion test signifies a important broadening of the monopoly given to registered trade marks. In the UK, this means that it would be much easier to claim protection under Section 10(2) then Section 10(1) of the TMA.24 Section 10(3) of the TMA, protects the trademark from dilution caused by infringing actions such as cybersquatting. However, questions arise how extensive should that protection be. Such issue was touched on by the controversial judgement in One in a Million25 where Aldous L interpreted the
20

Charlote Waelde, Trade Marks and Domain Names. Theres a Lot in a Name in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (n 5) 140 21 ibid 140-141 22 Case C-39/97, Cannon Kaboushiki Kaisha v Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] All ER (EC) 934, [1999] RPC 117, [1999] CMLR 77 23 Case C-251/95 Sabel v Puma [1998] 1 CMLR 445 24 Charlote Waelde, Trade Marks and Domain Names. Theres a Lot in a Name in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (n 5) 142 25 British Telecommunications and Others v One in a Million and Others [1999] 4 ALL ER 476 5

domain itself as being the trademark and had to be protected against practices that take advantage of the distinctiveness and reputation of the trade mark. It has been submitted that the court applied a superficial examination of trade marks which led to the rise of more problems that it solved and that the judgement overreached the boundaries of passing off. For legitimate small businesses making their way on the Internet it is of great importance to know what a mark with a reputation and what dilution mean so that they how to protect themselves against infringing accusations or even bullying by aggressive large businesses. Big businesses have far greater financial resources and access to legal advice and small businesses do not. So clear guidelines are necessary and it seems that real life provisions do not apply to domain name cases since for some of the trade marks in this situation there was no registered trade mark but the passing off law still applied.26 It will be briefly noted how case law27 demonstrates that in relationship with domains , trade mark protection does not only limit to the name of the domain. For example, there are cases regarding the usage of trade marks within a website and in email messages, as spam.28

2.2 Dispute Resolution Policy

Mediation and arbitration organisations have been utilised in many areas of law of as an alternative or a parallel to litigation.29 Through the UDRP, trade mark protection is being extended outside the court room. Mostly, the World Intellectual Property Organization adjudicates the UDRP, as part of ICANN. Apart from its obvious advantages: financial, international, quick and online, the system does not have to follow precedents. Therefore,
26

Charlote Waelde, Trade Marks and Domain Names. Theres a Lot in a Name in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (n 5) 143-147 27 Mattel Inc v Jcom Inc, SNDY No 97 Civ 7191 (SS) 9/10/98, Hotmail v Van$ Money Pie Inc, 47 USPQ 2d 1020 28 Charlote Waelde, Forthcoming Internet Trade Mark Disputes?, in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (eds), Law and the Internet: A framework for electronic commerce (HART Publishing 2000) 171-178 29 Lionel Bentley and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law, (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2009) 1097 6

previous decisions do not have an authority and disputes can be resolved with flexibility. This makes sense as a compromise between the Internets global nature and trade mark laws terrestrial attributes, as a result, arbitration can cater to a variety of situations.30 Under the UDRP, a domain name is contested if the domain name is confusingly similar with a trade mark or a service mark in which the plaintiff has rights, if the domain owner has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and if the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. Furthermore, evidence of bad faith is required.31 This policy has been effective in resolving a great number of complaints.32 For example, in Car Toys Inc v Informa Unlimited Inc.33 Car Toys Inc who was the owner of Car Toys trade mark complained that Informa had registered the domain name cartoys.net without a legitimate interest. Despite the fact that Informa was buying and developing descriptive domain names did not amount to an abusive registration and the fact that Car Toys had a registered trade mark over the name was irrelevant, thus as long as generic names are concerned, the buying and selling of domains does not necessarily have to be done in bad faith.34 However, criticism of the UDRP has arisen from a number of issues: it is limited to the internet and to registration cases. As a result, without a link to a trade mark there will be no remedy despite that the plaintiff could have other rights that are protected under UDRP35. Moreover, Jaqueline Lipton argues that: UDRP.. favours trademark holder companies to the detriment of original registrants. Statistics have established that a majority of UDRP arbitrators are decided in favour of the complainant who, by definition, must be a trademark holder.

30 31

Lipton (n 6) 22-28 www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm 32 Bentley and Sherman (n 27) 1098 33 National Arbitration Forum File No FA 0002000093682 34 Charlote Waelde, Trade Marks and Domain Names. Theres a Lot in a Name in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (n 5) 164 35 Lipton (n 6) 29-31 7

3. Case Law and Trade Mark Protection

Recent case law that has passed through the hands of the European Court of Justice provides an insight into the relationship between trade mark law and the Internet. The purpose of the case law is easily understandable: trade mark protection in the context of an ever-expanding Internet in a way that does not endanger the development of an information society where freedoms of competition, trade and expression are guaranteed.36 In order to achieve this goal, certain practices conducted on the Internet had to be scrutinised by the Court: the legality of the AdWords system and its implications, liability of online auction sites, and the issues surrounding double identity cases. We will move on to analyse if the European Court of Justice, as the highest authority, has given satisfactory solutions to trademark infringement practices in regards to the fundamental functions of the trade mark.

3.1 The AdWord Issue The AdWords system apparently is la pomme du discorde in recent case law. Not only it is one of Googles biggest money-makers as it has been reported that in 2008 it earned more then 20 billion dollars37 but also it seems to be unlawfully selling keywords identical or confusingly similar with a trade mark, at the alleged detriment of the trade mark itself. As it is well known, Google AdWords, show a list of a natural results as well as a list of sponsored ads on the same page and a number of advertisers can reserve the same keyword, and the order in which their advertising links are displayed is determined according to three criteria: the maximum price per click, the number of previous clicks on those links and the quality of the advertisement
36

Frank Valencia, Legal ambiguity in the digital economy: the case of eEbay and the liability of online auction sites, IBLJ 2011, 4, 431 37 Jonathan Cornthwaite, To key or not to key? The judgement of the European Court of Justice in the Google France Adwords cases EIPR 2010, 32(7) 352-359 8

as assessed by Google.38 The legality of such a practice was discussed in Google v Louis Vuitton39, Interflora v Marks & Spencer40and in Loreal v eBay41. The latter also raises issues on the liability of Internet auction sites.42

3.1.1Primary or Secondary Infringement?

According to trade mark law, the first step in assessing infringement is determining whether the possible infringer has made use of the trade mark, and this should be interpreted in a functional way based on the detriment the possible infringer has caused to the functions of the trade mark. To this effect, AG Poiares Maduro states in Google v Louis Vuitton43: There is no good or service sold to the general public. The use is limited to a selection procedure which is internal to AdWords and concerns only Google and the advertisers. This should be understood that if the use is not noticeable to customers there is no confusion to be generated so the fundamental function of the trade mark is not affected, therefore no infringement.44 The judgment in Google v Louis Vuitton can be seen from different perspectives. One could speculate that the Court had shied away from the body blow of Google and other search engines as the subsequent case law would bring about an avalanche of actions from the trade mark in all Member States. Here, the Court followed the Advocate Generals opinion but case law exists where the Court had decided not to do so. Regarding the liability of the search engine, as mentioned before, the key issue was whether or not there has been use in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 5(1) and (2) of the TMA. Following the judgment in Arsenal45 it was held that despite the
38

Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08, Google v Louis Vuitton [2010] ETMR 30, Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro, H2 39 Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08 Google v Louis Vuitton [2011] Bus. L.R. 1 40 Case C-323/09 Interflora v Marks & Spencer [2012] E.T.M.R 1 41 Case C-324/09 LOreal v eBay [2011] E.T.M.R 52 42 Georgios Psaroudakis, In search of trade mark functions: keyword advertising in European Law E.I.P.R 2012, 34(1), 33-39 43 n 38, 66-67 44 Psaroudakis (n 42) 45 Case C-206/01 Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed [2003] ETMR 286 9

fact that the search engine carries out an economic activity in view of a profit it does not mean that the search engine operator itself uses those trade marks within the meaning of Article 5 TMA. Following this reasoning, the opposite conclusion could be also drawn if the Court wanted to, as the advent of the Internet urges us to re-examine the core principles of trade mark law and to accept use in commerce as an element of trade mark infringement.46 On the other hand, this judgment can be regarded as an elegant way of establishing the liability of search engine operators through secondary infringement as their responsibility is derived from the advertisers responsibility47. By adopting this approach, the Court chose not to extend trade mark monopoly. In the authors opinion, if search engines would be primarily liable, it would clash with fundamental freedoms as trade mark owners would lawfully own the words themselves. Moreover, the Court did not over extend its authority as we have seen in case law on the free movement of services, and allowed National Courts to assess on the basis of the case whether the search engine infringed. Perhaps the Courts approach and endeavour to include a likelihood of confusion requirement into Article 5(1)(a) was imperfect as this carried into subsequent case law, however, the final conclusion was right that the search engine should not be primarily liable and that: the proprietor of the trade mark is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical with or similar to that trademark which that advertiser has, without the consent of the proprietor.48

3.1.2 Internet Advertisers Liability and AdWords We need to examine if the Courts approach was satisfactory in Interflora v Marks & Spencer , whether AdWord advertising has a negative influence on the essential function of the trade mark as well as on the advertising function and the investment function. Moreover the case raises questions in respect of
46 47

Stefan Kulk, Search engines- searching for trouble? EIPR 2011, 33(10), 4 ibid 5 48 Google v Louis Vuitton H 1 10

the unfair advantage or detriment that AdWord advertising possibly has on the trademark.49 Regarding the essential function of the trade mark, the Court followed the Google case law and held that this essential function would be affected if from Marks&Spencers advertisement the reasonably well informed and reasonably concerned customer would think it was part of Interflora, thus it is the advertisers job to clarify in the advert the origin of the products. On the advertising function, the Court correctly stated that in the case in hand the effects on this function are not sufficiently adverse, and that trade mark law did not protect the owner of a mark against practices inherent in competition, as advertising is meant to give the consumer alternatives. As the investment function is concerned, the Court is less clear, thus it will probably give rise to further litigation. It states that any substantial interference with the marks goals of reputation, preservation or acquisition causes a negative effect on the investment function, but it is not clear if it refers to a trade mark with reputation or just to a generic mark. This part of the decision is unsurprising as it follows the guidelines provided by the European Court of Justices previous case law.50 The Court remained inconclusive regarding dilution as it provided three different explanation to the term and it is unknown if any of these three definitions applied apply to the case. Moreover, it seems that dilution only stands as an argument along with an adverse effect on origin argument. If so, it is rather uncomfortable for brand owners, as dilution cant stand individually. At least regarding unfair advantage the Court seems more clear as the question turns on whether the condition without due cause is satisfied. The concept of without due cause was not generated by the Court as other concepts were, but comes from the actual text of Article 5(2) TMA, a fact that is refreshing. Still, it can be argued that the tone in this case seems to be again in favor of trade mark owners. 51

49

Daren Meale, Interflora: the last word on keyword advertising? Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2011 50 idid 51 Cornthwaite (n 37) 7-8 11

The judgment in Interflora does not bring about any revolutionary approach and it has been argued that its plainness comes as a result that a subsidiary chamber has judged the case. Moreover, the Court has been accused of being too cautious especially by constantly repeating that the facts had to be determined by the national court, thus giving the courts more flexibility but also an opportunity for contradictory decisions around the Community. The focus of the judgment on the likelihood of confusion could be of concern for brand owners since they might not be able to prove confusion under the reasonably informed consumer test.52

3.2 Online Marketplaces and trade marks The decision in Loreal v eBay provided guidelines on some issues of trade mark law in respect of the protection awarded to brands sold on Internet auction sites, the liability of online market places regarding AdWord advertising, the use of trade marks on their websites and the limits of the hosting defence harbored by the e-Commerce Directive53. Firstly, the Court held that the brand owners can oppose the marketing of testers and unboxed goods, the latter as the trade mark owner establishes that the removal of the packaging has damaged the reputation of the mark. Moreover, regarding products that are not aimed to be sold in the European market, the Court held that the trade mark owner can oppose their sale as it has to be in charge with the control of which products are distributed in the market.54 The Court also held that LOreal was able the object under Article 5(2) TMA eBays advertising its services and under Art 5(1) (a), when the keywords resulted in an advertisement promoting the brand. The trade mark owner can object if such advert does not facilitate the reasonably informed
52 53

ibid 9-10 Directive 2000/31 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 200 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market 54 Malorus Schrijvers, European Court rules on the position of eBay regarding sale of infringing products: LOreal v eBay EIPR 2011, 33 (11) 2 12

customer to recognize the origin of the products. Also, regarding the use of trade marks on marketplaces website, the Court exonerated eBay from liability stating that it does not make use of such marks in its own commercial activity.55 The most controversial issue regarding this case was whether eBay was guilty of hosting unlawful data and if the E-Commerce Directive exception safeguarded eBay. It was held under Article 14 of the Directive, the online marketplace is not to be held liable as long as it plays a neutral role, it does not have knowledge of the infringement or takes immediate measures to resolve it, and that it is for the national courts to determine whether or not the marketplace had an active role or knowledge. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice gave directions for the national courts on how an injunction can be ordered against an online marketplace.56 The ruling in this case is straightforward, and it seems that it is balanced in favour of trade marks. It sheds light on some matters of trade mark law and provides guidelines for national courts to asses whether market place is liable for the unlawful acts of users.

4. Conclusion

Trade mark protection on the Internet is proving to be one of the biggest topics in Intellectual Property today. This is due to the fact that on one hand the Internet is an formidable platform for promotion, advertising and brand marketing, but on the other hand it is an easy target for infringers to reap the benefits of legitimate trade marks as well as to sell counterfeit goods. Because of its global character, sometimes the hand of the law is not long enough to reach all corners. As a result, it seems that the Court of Justice has taken a paternalistic approach regarding trade mark protection on the Internet, and the outcome was not always positive. In its attempts to stop infringers, there is also collateral damage. Sometimes legitimate individuals or small businesses that try to establish an Internet presence are caught up in the measures for the protection of large, well known brands. The consequence of
55 56

ibid 3 ibid 13

protecting trade marks has been detrimental to small and emerging businesses and sometimes undermined fundamental freedoms.57 With regard to recent case law, to some extent the same paternalistic approach has been confirmed though with some exceptions. It seems that the Court is constantly trying to shift the source of law from the legislator to the case law. However, as Advocate General Maduro expressed in his opinion in Google v Louis Vuitton, search engines are part of our culture. It may well be that because of the Internets relentless growth, case law may often lag one step behind and never in fact become fixed or clearly determined.

Bibliography:

Table of cases:
57

Charlote Waelde, Trade Marks and Domain Names. Theres a Lot in a Name in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (n 5) 14

Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed (Case C-206/01 ) [2003] ETMR 286 Avnet Inc v Isoact Limited [1998] FSR 16 British Telecommunications and Others v One in a Million and Others [1999] 4 ALL ER 476 Cannon Kaboushiki Kaisha v Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer Inc (Case C-39/97) [1999] CMLR 77 Hotmail v Van$ Money Pie Inc, 47 USPQ 2d 1020 Interflora v Marks & Spencer (Case C-323/09) [2012] E.T.M.R 1 LOreal v eBay Case C-324/09 ) ([2011] E.T.M.R 52 Mattel Inc v Jcom Inc, SNDY No 97 Civ 7191 (SS) 9/10/98 Prince plc v Primce Sports Group Inc [1998] FSR 21 Sabel v Puma Case (C-251/95) [1998] 1 CMLR 445 Twentieth Century Fox et al v Newsbin Ltd [2010] F.S.R 21, Twentieh Century Fox et al v BT [2011] EWHC 1981

Table of Legislation:

Directive 2000/31 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 200 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market

Trade Mark Act 1994 Council Regulation No. 207/2009 of February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark (codified version)

Articles:

15

Cornthwaite J, To key or not to key? The judgement of the European Court of Justice in the Google France Adwords cases EIPR 2010, 32(7) Kulk S, Search engines- searching for trouble? EIPR 2011, 33(10), Meale D, Interflora: the last word on keyword advertising?, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2011 Psaroudakis G, In search of trade mark functions: keyword advertising in European Law E.I.P.R 2012, 34(1) Schrijvers M, European Court rules on the position of eBay regarding sale of infringing products: LOreal v eBay EIPR 2011, 33 (11) Valencia F, Legal ambiguity in the digital economy: the case of eEbay and the liability of online auction sites, IBLJ 2011, 4, Waelde C, Thade Marks and Domain Names. Theres a Lot in a Name in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (eds), Law and the Internet: A framework for electronic commerce (HART Publishing 2000) Waelde C, Forthcoming Internet Trade Mark Disputes?, in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde (eds), Law and the Internet: A framework for electronic commerce (HART Publishing 2000)

Books:

16

Bentley Land Sherman B, Intellectual Property Law, (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2009) Lipton J, Internet Domain Names, Trademarks and Free Speech (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd 2010)

Websites: www.icann.org

17