Internet registry, Nominet has held that the privately owned website, ‘Ihateryanair.co.uk’ takes unfair advantage of the airline’s trademark, and should therefore be handed over to them. The website was set up in 2007 by Robert Tyler- a dissatisfied Ryanair customer. Its primary purpose was to create a forum for people to share their negative experiences of flying with the no-frills airline.
Ryanair complained to Nominet that Tyler’s use of their Community trademark in his website’s domain name constituted ‘abusive registration’. Although the judgment found in favour of Ryanair, expert Jane Seager clearly emphasised the importance of the continued existence of criticism websites, such as Tyler’s, in a democratic society. Nominet’s finding was not determined by Tyler’s use of a trademarked word for his domain name, but rather turned on the fact that he had received an income from the commercial links included on the site. Although the amount was insubstantial (£322), and despite the fact that making a profit was evidently not Tyler’s primary intention behind the site, Nominet concluded that using the trademark almost certainly increased the level of traffic to the website, and therefore constituted abusive registration. It was irrelevant that the domain name in its entirety made it clear that the website was not affiliated with the airline.
Nominet controls domain names with the co.uk ending. Its Dispute Resolution Service assesses registered websites in light of its policy of use, rather than undertaking an examination into legal issues. Wings clipped, but undeterred, Tyler has moved his website into the .org domain.
By Katey Dixon
Further Reading:
http://www.nic.uk/disputes/drs/decisions/decisionssearch/?searchText=i+hate+ryanair&x=0&y=0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/12/i-hate-ryanair-website-closed
- Follow Forde Campbell on Twitter
Friday 15 October 2010
Monday 4 October 2010
UK to be tried by European Court for Failing to Implement Data Protection Rules
The European Commission has commenced ‘infringement proceedings’ against the UK government, alleging it has breached EU data protection laws. The decision follows a year-long investigation into whether UK law provides sufficient safeguards against the interception and surveillance of internet traffic.
Concerns were initially raised when the EC received complaints from citizens about a British telecom firm’s use of behavioural advertising. In 2006-2007, BT tested behavioural advertising technology on its broadband users, without the consent of the customers involved in the trial. The advertising system, known as Webwise, was invented by Phorm – a US-based company which specialises in advertising software. Once an ISP has signed up to the service, Webwise is able to ‘trawl’ sites visited by its users in order to build up a profile of the users’ interests and habits. The information can be exploited by advertisers who are then able to target customers on the sites they visit thereafter. What sets Phorm’s technology apart from other behavioural advertising systems, is that it works in conjunction with ISPs, rather than simply relying on data shared between associated websites. Although BT later rejected the technology, and no other UK ISPs are known to have used it since, the UK government failed to give a satisfactory verdict on the legality of the BT trials. It did, however, conclude that the technology itself is legal so long as users have actively given their consent, and web-sites can easily opt out of the system.
Having considered the situation in the UK, the Commission concluded that data protection in the UK is not sufficiently robust to fulfil its obligations under the e-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC and the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. The Commission identified three areas of potential infringement:
(1) The UK has failed to establish an independent national authority to supervise the interception of internet communications.
(2) Current UK law authorises the interception of communications, not only where the persons involved have given their consent, but also where the person intercepting has “reasonable grounds” for believing that consent has been given.
(3) Current UK law only provides sanctions where unlawful interception is “intentional”.
If the Court finds in favour of the Commission, the UK will be obliged to implement the measures necessary to comply with the judgment. If the UK subsequently fails to take the steps required, a financial sanction will be imposed by the Court.
For further reading:
Europa
BBC
The Guardian
By Katey Dixon
Concerns were initially raised when the EC received complaints from citizens about a British telecom firm’s use of behavioural advertising. In 2006-2007, BT tested behavioural advertising technology on its broadband users, without the consent of the customers involved in the trial. The advertising system, known as Webwise, was invented by Phorm – a US-based company which specialises in advertising software. Once an ISP has signed up to the service, Webwise is able to ‘trawl’ sites visited by its users in order to build up a profile of the users’ interests and habits. The information can be exploited by advertisers who are then able to target customers on the sites they visit thereafter. What sets Phorm’s technology apart from other behavioural advertising systems, is that it works in conjunction with ISPs, rather than simply relying on data shared between associated websites. Although BT later rejected the technology, and no other UK ISPs are known to have used it since, the UK government failed to give a satisfactory verdict on the legality of the BT trials. It did, however, conclude that the technology itself is legal so long as users have actively given their consent, and web-sites can easily opt out of the system.
Having considered the situation in the UK, the Commission concluded that data protection in the UK is not sufficiently robust to fulfil its obligations under the e-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC and the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. The Commission identified three areas of potential infringement:
(1) The UK has failed to establish an independent national authority to supervise the interception of internet communications.
(2) Current UK law authorises the interception of communications, not only where the persons involved have given their consent, but also where the person intercepting has “reasonable grounds” for believing that consent has been given.
(3) Current UK law only provides sanctions where unlawful interception is “intentional”.
If the Court finds in favour of the Commission, the UK will be obliged to implement the measures necessary to comply with the judgment. If the UK subsequently fails to take the steps required, a financial sanction will be imposed by the Court.
For further reading:
Europa
BBC
The Guardian
By Katey Dixon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
