Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
TRENDING TODAY
Home > News > Security

November 30th, 2011, 08:46 GMT · By

Google and Facebook Forced to Help Chanel Fight Counterfeiting

SHARE:

Adjust text size:

Chanel wants to make sure counterfeiters won't affect their incomes
Enlarge picture
French fashion house Chanel won a big battle with counterfeiters after it obtained a court order against hundreds of websites that commercialized fake luxury products.

A Nevada court ruled in favor of Chanel and, besides giving them the power to seize the rogue domains, the judge also ordered search engines and social media websites to make sure the domain names won’t pop up in any searches or advertisements.

Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Bing, Google and Yahoo will have to remove every trace of the websites, thus making sure the luxury goods provider’s business will not be affected by rogue shops, reports Wired.

It turns out that Chanel filed a law suit against close to 700 domain names, all of which will be now transferred to GoDaddy registrar in the US.

On November 14, 228 sites were also pursued by the company in a courtroom and none of them had the chance to defend themselves.

To prove that the sites in question were dealing counterfeit goods, Chanel had a private investigator make an order from three of the shops. The products were then reviewed by a specialist who declared them fakes.

The rest of the domains were seized based on the inquiries made by a Chanel anti-counterfeiting expert who browsed the Internet in search for online stores.

The only problem is that not all the domains were from the US and such a search engine and social media censorship could be regarded as a violation of internet freedom. Experts see this ruling as being highly problematic with potentially unwanted outcomes.

“I’m sympathetic to the ‘whack-a-mole’ problem rights owners face, but this relief is just extraordinarily broad and is on shaky procedural grounds,” law professor Venkat Balasubramani said.

“I’m not sure how this court can direct a registry to change a domain name’s registrar of record or Google to de-list a site, but the court does so anyway. This is probably the most problematic aspect of the court’s orders.”


1,599 hits · 1 comment
Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


101Domain.Com Customers Exposed After Security Breach

Open Rights Group Demands Court Orders For Domain Suspensions

Phishing Relies Less on Famous Brands

European Parliament Criticizes SOPA

Domain Resellers Deploy New Techniques to Evade Spam Filters

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: Eric on 30 Nov 2011, 21:16 UTC reply to this comment

Picture you grandfather. This judge likely knows about as much about the Internet as he does, only his knowledge of law makes him think he does.

Judges aren't inherently any smarter than anyone else, they just went to a lot of school, got a lot of debt, and listen to whatever overpriced lawyer they happen to agree with.

Not a shock that grandpa doesn't get the Internet...or that they'd make a silly ruling like this.

Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM