QuoteUS judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/us-judge-orders-hundreds-of-sites-de-indexed-from-google-twitter-bing-facebook.ars)
After a series of one-sided hearings, luxury goods maker Chanel has won recent court orders against hundreds of websites trafficking in counterfeit luxury goods. A federal judge in Nevada has agreed that Chanel can seize the domain names in question and transfer them all to US-based registrar GoDaddy. The judge also ordered "all Internet search engines" and "all social media websites"—explicitly naming Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Bing, Yahoo, and Google—to "de-index" the domain names and to remove them from any search results.
And how is this supposed to work on a global scale?
Interesting the domain mentioned that has not been taken down
Poshmoda.ws
Does say on the product page it is a replica unlike those sold in markets. So the customer knows, but will probably be in denial.
http://www.poshmoda.ws/handbags/chanel/prod/3836-chanel-classic-quilted-frame-flap-bag-s-%28red%29
QuoteThrough strict quality control, we ensure that you'll get your money's worth of a replica bag. Our Replica Chanel Handbags has the exact elements and details you're looking for
I can see Chanels point. Funny how the law gets there before the Govt.
Hmm, but prior US Court rulings said that Google's search index belongs to Google and they can list or de-list whoever they want, in any order they want.
Everybody has had a pretty hands-off attitude towards Google, and Google has been exempt till now about the rules governing linking to pirated material, but this ruling seems to make Goog a little bit closer to being a utility and utilities eventually get regulated or have to follow the same rules as websites.
Is there anything wrong with replicas?? I can't see anything. Why don't C just do what Gibson and other guitar makers do and start their own cheaper brands which are affordable for the every day fabulous man?
>Is there anything wrong with replicas??
I guess the argument is that the replicas are infringing on trademarks and that by some passing them off as the real deal it cuts into their sales and weakens the brand.
Quotepassing them off as the real deal
THAT is the problem.
Selling a knockoff style is one thing, but claiming that it is the real product from Designer XYZ is another matter.
'Judges' are a huge problem - older judges are out of touch with the Internet - younger judges lack the wisdom and knowledge.
I think every judge should be tethered to a helper 'junior judge' - kind of like a guide dog for blind people
@4Eyes LOL!
Nevada must be to brands as Texas is to those ridiculous patent lawsuits that see the light of day. I think there's one wacky court in Texas that makes all its money from accepting all those patent troll suits. Nevada obviously doesn't want to be left out of this lucrative game. I wonder how much they got.
Chanel is a French fashion house. Why should anyone in the US get so bent out of shape if they can't sell their overpriced goods? No Americans are losing their jobs.
Don't be so quick to dismiss this as someone else's problem.
I do SEO consulting for a US-based company that does indeed lose sales and jobs because their styles are counterfeited. Playing DMCA whackamole with phoney websites full of stolen product pictures is an ongoing problem and an increasing waste of resources.
Not only are sales lost to the counterfeiters, it also causes additional harm for this company and others like it when a bargain-hunting user buys a phoney item, not realizing it's phoney, then blames the real company all over the internet when the item is not the quality she expected.
This is a major problem in some sectors, but it takes a big company with deep pockets to fight back effectively.
I for one am extremely glad to see this decision.
Last week the feds seized 150 domains that were selling countefeit goods
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/26/domain-names-piracy-crackdown_n_1114126.html
Most of these domains were in one of my biggest markets (NFL jerseys) so I am so glad to see them go. Hard to convince people to buy a licences legitimate jersey for $85 when they can get a cheap fake knockoff for $20. And there are dozens and dozens more sites I can point them to that are selling fakes. Glad to see them go.
I find myself torn between two views on the subject - I make my money marketing, and the money kind of depends on trademarks and copyright etc to keep the revenues up... but then..... $85 for an NFL Jersey !! (and not much different for a Premier League Football shirt over here). Its outrageous.
I know the arguments for and against, but I find it hard to separate them on moral grounds.
Having said that, if I went round separating stuff from other stuff 'on moral grounds' I'd probably be a lot poorer.
One day, if I drink sufficiently large amounts of alcohol, I may just come up with a replacement system for Capitalism that was totally fair and would make everyone happy...... then I'd patent it and sell the patent to Apple - there is a time and a place for morals, eh :)
haahah let me in on your brainstorming session and I'll pick up the bar tab;)