In 2001, the landmark case of ecommerce, Hendrickson v. eBay, the court found eBay to not be liable for stolen or counterfeit items sold on its site. The site was found to be in the safe harbor of the DMCA, and differentiated from the classic case of the flea market proprietor found liable for selling stolen goods. eBay was found to be in the safe harbor, including robust terms of service and links for users to flag inappropriate content. At the end of the day, Hendrickson required manufacturers to be on notice and proactively search and flag stolen goods on eBay. This was a big change from the flea market paradigm of the past, but there were a lot of strange things happening in 2001. Conversely, after Hendrickson, Napster & Grokster came through, which were about copyright but pondered a similar unchartered realms of e-commerce and trade. Napster couldn’t keep 100% pirated work off the site per court order, and were forced to shut down.

If eBay had lost the case and been put in a position where they needed to comply 100% a la the Napster Trajectory, they would have been put in an extremely difficult place, because while it is easy to recognize a NBC TV clip, it is not so easy to recognize a knock-off Tiffany & Co. ring by looking at a grainy photograph. This distinction may have been what in the end saved eBay. However, while Hendrickson and Napster both made trademark claims, they were overshadowed by the copyright issues in the cases which call to the DMCA. Tiffany’s claim was strictly within trademark.

Additional coverage: AP, Marketwatch, Reuters, NYT, CNET

CNN Money, WSJ, Washinton Post, PC Magazine, Reuters, WSJ Law Blog (with a shout out – thanks Peter)

Considering the timeline thus far, I’m not holding my breath.

Recent developments: Google has introduced “YouTube Video Identification” to help rights holders monitor infringing content. Predictably, Viacom has stated that this is an inadequate step and they are still being harmed by YouTube.

Thus far, the Napster  trajectory has been followed.  To continue on the same path, Viacom will ask for an injunction against YouTube alleging irreparable harm and will ask the court to order Napster-esq 100% compliance…which is what caused Napster to shut down before the case made it into a courtroom. Only time will tell whether the injunction will be granted, what level of compliance is deemed adequate, and what level of compliance YouTube can maintain.

Interestingly, the YouTube Video Identification technology is extremely similar to the Proactive Fraud Protection service created by eBay in response to the Tiffany & Co suit they are battling (or have settled on the sly). Both systems are “tools” that IP rights holders can use. Neither system puts any responsibilities on eBay or YouTube to proactively filter content or identify improper material. Tiffany & Co. and Viacom argue that the service providers are profiting from the infringing material and should carry the burden of monitoring it. YouTube and eBay argue that there is no way for them to tell what is a real Tiffany’s ring or Friends video clip.

eBay: 2003 10-K
Our business may be harmed by the listing or sale by our users of pirated or counterfeit items.
We have received in the past, and we anticipate receiving in the future, communications alleging that certain items listed or sold through our service by our users infringe third-party copyrights, trademarks and tradenames, or other intellectual property rights. Although we have sought to work actively with the content community to eliminate infringing listings on our websites, some content owners have expressed the view that our efforts are insufficient. Content owners have been active in defending their rights against online companies, including eBay. Allegations of infringement of intellectual property rights have resulted in litigation against us from time to time. Such litigation is costly for us, could result in increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, could require us to change our business practices in expensive ways, or could otherwise harm our business. Litigation against other online companies could result in interpretations of the law that could also require us to change our business practices or otherwise increase our costs. (162 words)

eBay: 2004 10-K
The listing or sale by our users of pirated or counterfeit items may harm our business.
We have received in the past, and we anticipate receiving in the future, communications alleging that certain items listed or sold through our service by our users infringe third-party copyrights, trademarks and trade names, or other intellectual property rights. Although we have sought to work actively with the owners of intellectual property rights to eliminate listings offering infringing items on our websites, some rights owners have expressed the view that our efforts are insufficient. Content owners and other intellectual property rights owners have been active in defending their rights against online companies, including eBay. Allegations of infringement of intellectual property rights have resulted in litigation against us from time to time, including litigation brought by Tiffany & Co. in the U.S., Rolex S.A. in Germany, and a number of other owners of intellectual property rights. While we have been largely successful to date in defending against such litigation, more recent cases have been based, at least in part, on different legal theories than those of earlier cases, and there is no guarantee that we will continue to be successful in our defense. In addition, we expect that this type of litigation may increase as our sites gain prominence in markets outside of the U.S., where the laws may be unsettled or less favorable to us. Such litigation is costly for us, could result in damage awards or increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, could require us to change our business practices in expensive ways, or could otherwise harm our business. Litigation against other online companies could result in interpretations of the law that could also require us to change our business practices or otherwise increase our costs. (280 words)

eBay: 2005 10-K
The listing or sale by our users of pirated or counterfeit items may harm our business.
We have received in the past, and we anticipate receiving in the future, communications alleging that certain items listed or sold through our service by our users infringe third-party copyrights, trademarks and trade names, or other intellectual property rights. Although we have sought to work actively with the owners of intellectual property rights to eliminate listings offering infringing items on our websites, some rights owners have expressed the view that our efforts are insufficient. Content owners and other intellectual property rights owners have been active in defending their rights against online companies, including eBay. Allegations of infringement of intellectual property rights have resulted in litigation against us from time to time, including litigation brought by Tiffany & Co. and Robespierre, Inc. (doing business as Nanette Lepore) in the U.S., Rolex S.A. in Germany, and a number of other owners of intellectual property rights. While we have been largely successful to date in defending against such litigation, more recent cases have been based, at least in part, on different legal theories than those of earlier cases, and there is no guarantee that we will continue to be successful in our defense. In addition, a public perception that counterfeit or pirated items are commonplace on our site could damage our reputation and our business. Litigation and negative publicity may increase as our sites gain prominence in markets outside of the U.S., where the laws may be unsettled or less favorable to us. Such litigation is costly for us, could result in damage awards or increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, could require us to change our business practices in expensive ways, or could otherwise harm our business. Litigation against other online companies could result in interpretations of the law that could also require us to change our business practices or otherwise increase our costs. (305 words)

eBay: 2006 10-K
The listing or sale by our users of pirated or counterfeit items may harm our business.
We have received in the past, and we anticipate receiving in the future, communications alleging that certain items listed or sold through our service by our users infringe third-party copyrights, trademarks and trade names, or other intellectual property rights. Although we have sought to work actively with the owners of intellectual property rights to eliminate listings offering infringing items on our websites, some rights owners have expressed the view that our efforts are insufficient. Content owners and other intellectual property rights owners have been active in asserting their rights against online companies, including eBay. Allegations of infringement of intellectual property rights have resulted in litigation against us from time to time, including litigation brought by Tiffany & Co. and Robespierre, Inc. (doing business as Nanette Lepore) in the U.S., Rolex S.A. in Germany, Louis Vuitton Malletier and Christian Dior Couture in France, and a number of other owners of intellectual property rights. The plaintiffs in these cases seek to hold eBay liable for counterfeit items listed on our sites by third parties, for the misuse of trademarks in listings or in connection with paid search advertisements, or for alleged violations of selective distribution channel laws. Tiffany seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and damages. A trial in the Tiffany case has been scheduled for May 2007. Nanette Lepore sought, among other things, to require eBay to block all listings offering Nanette Lepore items, as well as damages. The court denied Nanette Lepore’s request for a preliminary injunction, and found that eBay’s process for addressing the listing of counterfeit items by third parties on its site was both reasonable and adequate. Nanette Lepore initially appealed the ruling, but subsequently abandoned its appeal. Other luxury brand owners have also filed suit against us or have threatened to do so. In addition, we may be subject to criminal penalties if the authorities feel we have aided in the sale of counterfeit goods. While to date we have been largely successful in defending against such litigation, more recent cases have been based, at least in part, on different legal theories than those of earlier cases, and there is no guarantee that we will continue to be successful in defending against such litigation. In particular, plaintiffs in recent cases have argued that we are not entitled to safe harbors under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the U.S. or as a hosting provider in the European Union because of the active nature of our involvement with our sellers, and that, whether or not such safe harbors are available, we should be found liable because we have not adequately removed counterfeit listings or effectively suspended users who have created such listings. In addition, a public perception that counterfeit or pirated items are commonplace on our site could damage our reputation and our business. Litigation and negative publicity may increase as our sites gain prominence in markets outside of the U.S., where the laws may be unsettled or less favorable to us. Such litigation is costly for us, could result in damage awards or increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, could require us to change our business practices in expensive ways, or could otherwise harm our business. Litigation against other online companies could result in interpretations of the law that could also require us to change our business practices or otherwise increase our costs. (559 words)

5/5/07: “Further conf set for 6/15/07 at 12:15 pm; trial adjourned due to Judge Karas’ trial schedule; defts’ in limine motions due 5/18; response 6/1; reply 6/8.”

Then the whole case was put on hold until September 21.  Sounds like Judge Karas may have some important summer vacation plans?