- citations in SCIndeks: 0
- citations in CrossRef:0
- citations in Google Scholar:[
 ]
- visits in previous 30 days:9
- full-text downloads in 30 days:8
|
|
|
2020, vol. 58, iss. 3, pp. 141-155
|
|
Evolution of case law regarding the interpretation of the secondary liability standard in U.S. trademark law
Evolucija sudske prakse u pogledu tumačenja standarda posredne odgovornosti u žigovnom pravu SAD
Abstract
Secondary liability, according to the general rules on liability, is based on the issue of conscientiousness, in other words whether the intermediary knew or should have known that the right was infringed through his service. In U.S. law, the secondary liability standard is a result of case law. This paper presents the evolution of case law regarding the interpretation of secondary liability standard in U.S. trademark law. This standard was announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories Inc. regarding the liability of manufacturers and distributors. In the decades that followed, the U.S. Courts, with their creative interpretations, extended the scope of application of this standard, first to intermediary market operators, and later to online service providers (internet intermediaries). Also, the development of digital technology has influenced the case law to adapt the secondary liability standard for trademark infringement to the new circumstances in the digital environment. The most significant cases in this context are Hard Rock Café Licensing v. Concession Services, Inc., Tiffany Inc. v. eBay Inc. and Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Inc. Finally, 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc. demonstrates a slight turn of the U.S. Courts' practices towards a more flexible interpretation of secondary liability standard to online service providers.
Sažetak
Posredna odgovornost se, prema opštim pravilima o odgovornosti, zasniva na pitanju savesnosti, odnosno na pitanju da li je posrednik znao ili morao da zna da se putem njegove usluge povređuje pravo. Standard za utvrđivanje posredne odgovornosti u žigovnom pravu SAD je rezultat sudske prakse. U radu će biti predstavljena evolucija sudske prakse u pogledu tumačenja standarda posredne odgovornosti. Ovaj standard prvi put je ustanovio Vrhovni sud SAD osamdesetih godina XX veka u predmetu Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories Inc., i to u pogledu odgovornosti proizvođača i distributera. U decenijama koje su usledile, sudska praksa je svojim kreativnim tumačenjima proširivala opseg primene ovog standarda, najpre na operatere posredničkih tržišta, a kasnije i na onlajn pružaoce usluga. Razvoj digitalne tehnologije takođe je uticao na to da sudska praksa prilagođava standard posredne odgovornosti novonastalim okolnostima u digitalnom okruženju. Iako se, na prvi pogled, čini da se prvobitno postavljeni uslovi nisu mnogo promenili, analiza sudske prakse ukazuje da ih američki sudovi nisu tumačili "okamenjeno" i da su određene presude doprinele "labavljenju" strogih uslova posredne odgovornosti za povredu žiga. Najznačajnije presude u tom kontekstu su one u predmetima: Hard Rock Café Licensing v. Concession Services, Inc., Tiff any Inc. v. eBay Inc. i Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Inc. Presuda u predmetu 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens. COM, Inc. svedoči o jasnom opredeljenju američkih sudova za fleksibilnije tumačenje standarda posredne odgovornosti u kontekstu onlajn pružalaca usluga.
|
|
|
|
References
|
|
|
Brogan, K.M. (2013) Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Incorporated: Trademarking Language: Google's Adwords and the Value of Online Searching. Law School Student Scholarship, 2013, dostupno na adresi: https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&articl=1393&context=student_scholarship, 29. 7. 2
|
|
1 
|
Ćeranić, J. (2018) Specifičnosti režima odgovornosti internet posrednika za povredu žiga u pravu SAD i EU. in: Popović Dušan [ed.] Intelektualna svojina i internet, Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu-Pravni fakultet
|
|
1
|
Ćeranić-Perišić, J. (2020) Odgovornost internet posrednika za povredu žiga. Beograd: Institut za uporedno pravo
|
|
1
|
Dinwoodie, G.B. (2017) A Comparative Analysis of the Secondary Liability of Online Service Providers. in: Dinwoodie Graeme B. [ed.] Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers, Cham: Springer
|
|
1
|
Dinwoodie, G.B. (2014) Secondary Liability for Online Trademark Infringement: The International Landscape. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Vol. 37, Nr. 4
|
|
|
Dogan, S.L. (2014) Principled Standards vs. Boundless Discretion: A Tale of Two Approaches to Intermediary Trademark Liability Online. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Vol. 37, Nr. 4
|
|
|
Levin, E. (2009) A Safe Harbour for Trademark: Reevaluating Secondary Trademark Liability after Tiffany v. eBay. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 24, Nr. 1
|
|
|
Marie, B.K. (2013) Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Incorporated: Trademarking Language: Google's Adwords and the Value of Online Searching. Law School Student Scholarship, dostupno na adresi: https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgireferer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&articl=1393 &context=student_scholarship, 29. 7. 2020
|
|
1
|
Rimmer, M. (2011) Breakfast at Tiffany's: eBay Inc, Trade Mark Law and Counterfeiting. Journal of Law, Information & Science, Nr. 1
|
|
|
Riordan, J. (2017) Website Blocking Injunctions under United Kingdom and European Law. in: Dinwoodie Graeme B. [ed.] Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers, Cham: Springer
|
|
|
Saunders, K.M., Berger-Walliser, G. (2011) The Liability of Online Markets for Counterfeit Goods: A Comparative Analysis of Secondary Trademark Infringement in the United States and Europe. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, Vol. 32, Nr. 37
|
|
|
|
|