Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.
KBS AMERICA, INC. AND MUN HWA BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. MYTV, INC., ET AL
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
The Defendants' response in this case is interesting in that it attempted to create a firestorm backlash against the Plaintiff in the apparent hope of creating a "mobosphere" attack to gain some bargaining advantage and to intimidate the Plaintiff into submission. This is an attempt to use the "Streisand effect" to create a "mobosphere" attack. No matter what type of claim you are asserting, there is always the possibility of a counter-attack aimed at your business reputation online.
The Plaintiffs offer and sell immediate real-time access to a stream of content broadcast by Korean affiliates over the Internet to North American subscribers. The Defendants are alleged to be an illegal business by intercepting and re-broadcasting the Korean television streams of such works without authorization and then competing against the Plaintiff. Plaintiff demanded the Defendant's cease and desist from intercepting signals and infringing on its exclusive license rights. The Defendants allegedly responded by taking out full page advertisements in Korean language newspapers in the United States demanding that the Plaintiff stop asserting its rights to the programming. This lawsuit followed shortly thereafter.
Plaintiff has sued the Defendants for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and unfair business practices. An injunction prohibiting further copyright infringement, together with an order requiring impoundment and destruction of copies of the creative works, together with compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys' are request by the Plaintiff to be awarded by the court. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1253.
FRACTIONAL VILLAS, INC. v. WINDSOR CAPITAL MORTGAGE CORP. AND DOES 1-25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)
In order for there to be copyright infringement there must be "substantial copying". The analysis, however, is a very subjective one. The determination of what is, and is not, copyright infringement can often turn on design elements, arrangement of information, and the underlying html code. Consequently, make sure that if there is not blatant, word for word copying involved that you perform a quality analysis.
The Plaintiff developed, built, and launched a real estate industry website. Defendants are alleged to have copied its website and are competing against the Plaintiff. The Defendants are alleged to have "replicated the look and feel of Plaintiff's website by mimicking certain distinctive elements". The Plaintiff also alleges that the two sites bear striking similarity to one another, in that Windsor's site has taken virtually all textual and design elements, as well as the website layout, from the Plaintiffs.
The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, trademark infringement, common law trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition under state and federal law. The lawsuit requests entry of temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, and an award of compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1254.
NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION, INC. v. AUTOMATED INFO SOLUTIONS, INC.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (WEST PALM BEACH)
Unfortunately, there are still people and businesses who actually believe that if you can access information online the owner has waived all rights to protect it. Of course, that is not the case. Software programs that "scrape" data create inherent exposure for copyright infringement and claims of unauthorized access (hacking). There are a long line of cases going back into the late 1990s in which Plaintiff's have been successful in lawsuits against those running automated programs and retrieving information.
Plaintiff is a website that provides timely and relevant information on the golf industry with original research on every aspect of the business. Part of its business is to maintain databases which it has developed at great cost and expense, including a directory of all golf facilities and golf courses, which is a comprehensive listing of golf courses and their features throughout the United States. The Defendant claims to be in the business of "automating the collection of public data from websites". Plaintiff alleges that Defendant developed a software program that "scraped" the data from its database and sold the information as a "list of U.S. golf courses".
The lawsuit is for copyright infringement, false designation or origin, false advertising, misappropriation of trade secrets, and deceptive and unfair trade practices. The Plaintiff requests the issuance of a temporary and permanent injunction, together with an award of actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and other relief. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1255.