An Overview of International Jurisprudence on Embedded Linking and Framing Related Unfair-Competition, Passing-Off and Trademark Questions

2014-02-03

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

ANOVERVIEWOFINTERNATIONALJURISPRUDENCEONEMBEDDED
LINKINGANDFRAMINGANDRELATEDUNFAIR-COMPETITION,PASSING-OFF
ANDTRADEMARKQUESTIONS
CANADA

BOBH.SOTIRIADIS,MARCELNAUDANDJASONMOSCOVICI*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

INTRODUCTION
TheInternethasbecomeoneofthemostimportantchannelstodistributeandshare
contentofwhatevernature–whetherthatisplaintext,images,videosormusic.
Fromthebeginning,thepossibilitytolinktoothersitesmadeiteasyforpublishersto
integratethird-partycontentintheirownoffering.Meanwhile,simplelinkinghasbeen
spicedup–framingandembeddingarebothtechnicalsolutionstomakethird-party
contentappearasanintegralpartofyourownwebsite.Fromalegalpointofview,
thesetechniques,whicharetypicalforthereference-baseduseoftoday´sInternet,
raisedifficultquestionsinparticularinthefieldsofcopyrightandunfaircompetition
law.
Inrecentyears,variousnationaljurisdictionssawcourtdecisionsonindividuallegal
aspectsoflinking,deep-linking(i.e.linkingtoaspecificsub-pageratherthantothe
homepage),framingandembedding.Despitethetrulyinternationalnatureofthe
Internetandtheextensiveharmonizationofthelawinthefieldofinformation
technology,EuropehasnotyetseenbindingrulingsoftheEuropeanCourtofJustice
inthisfield.Severalcasesarependingatthemoment,butitwouldbesurprisingif
decisionsweremadebefore2015.
Inthisenvironment,itiscrucialforpublishersandcontentproviderstoknowwhere
theredlinesareinindividualjurisdictions–aswhatmaybeacceptableinGermany
mayalreadybeinadmissibleintheUKorFrance.FieldFisherWaterhouse,together
withvariouscontributorsfromourinternationalnetwork,haveanalysedthecaselaw
thatisexistinginthisfieldoflaw,andpreparedthefollowingoverview.Wehopethat
thisworkwillhelpyouandyourbusinessinavoidingunnecessaryriskswhen
exploringtheopportunitiestheInternetoffers.

©CIPS,2014.*LawyerswithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-markagents,
contributorstotheCanaiansection.EditedbyFieldFisherWaterhouseandpublishedinOctober2013
TheIntroductiomtheExecutivesummaryandthequestionsarethoseofthepublisher.Publication
062.067

EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Eventhoughtheinternationalcaselawpictureispatchyandsometimesinconsistent,
someguidelinesdeservetobehighlighted:
Simplelinkingisadmissibleinmostjurisdictionsundercopyrightandunfair-
competition-lawaspects.Somejurisdictions,however,seeapotentialcopyright
liabilityifthetextofthelinkitselfcontainscopyright-protectedlanguage.Deep-linking
mayalsoraiseconcernsincertainjurisdictions.Inonejurisdiction(Netherlands)case
lawindicatesthatthefactthatthematerialtowhichthelinkdirectedwasnotyet
availabletothepublicisdecisive.
Embeddingcontentfromathird-partysourceisthemostdebatedissueatthe
moment.Thelegalsituationcanberegardedasunclearwithastrongtendencythat
embeddingisregardedasacopyright-relevantactinmostjurisdictions.Thus,the
publicationofembeddedcontentrequiresalicenseoftherightsownerofthat
content.TherearetworeferencespendingattheEuropeanCourtofJusticewhich
mayprovidefurtherclarification,butabindingjudgmentisunlikelytobeduebefore
2015.
Fromanunfair-competition/passing-offangle,inmostjurisdictionsthereisaliability
riskunderspecificcircumstances,e.g.ifthelinkispresentedintheformofa
registeredtrademarkandtheuseisunfairordetrimentaltothetrademark;orifa
trademarkcontainedinalinkorembeddedcontentcreatesconfusionaboutthe
relationshipbetweenthetwosites.
InitialQuestions

1.Canitbeacopyrightinfringementforawebsiteorwebapplication(the“Linking
Site”)toprovideasimplelinktoanotherwebsiteorwebapplicationcontaining
legalcontent?I.e.theLinkingSitereferstheuserdirectlytoanotherwebsite
withoutanyreproductionofcopyrightmaterialontheserveroftheLinkingSite.
1
2.CanitbeacopyrightinfringementfortheLinkingSitetoembedthe
copyrightedmaterialofathirdpartyontheLinkingSitewithoutauthorisation?
I.e.thereisalinkontheLinkingSitewhichreferstheusertolegaldataonthe
thirdparty’sserver.TheLinkingSitedynamicallygeneratesawebpageorstream
ontheuser’sPCwithinthecontextoftheLinkingSite.Thereisnoredistribution

1Pleaseconsiderthereproductionright(Article2oftheCopyrightDirective2001/29/EC)andthe
rightstocommunicatetothepublicandmakeavailabletothepublic(Article3oftheCopyright
Directive).

3
orhostingofcontentviatheLinkingSite.2Doesitmakeadifferenceiftheuser
hastotakeactiontoseethecontent(e.g.avisualworkmayappearautomatically
buttheusermayneedtoclicktodownloadasoundrecording)?
3.Arethereanytrademark,unfair-competitionorpassing-offissuesiflogosor
brandnamesareusedtoidentifythethird-partygoodsandservices?Doesit
makeadifferenceifthereisaclearnotificationthattheLinkingSiteandthe
embedded/linkedsiteareunconnectedthirdparties?

2Pleaseconsiderthereproductionright(Article2oftheCopyrightDirective)andtherightsto
communicatetothepublicandmakeavailabletothepublic(Article3oftheCopyrightDirective).

OVERVIEW
1.Canlinking
constitute
copyright
infringement?
2.Canembedding
constitutecopy-
rightinfringement?
3.Canusing
logosorbrand
namescause
IP-lawissues?
CANADA

No.
theactof
providingasimple
linktocopyright
protectedcontent,
foundonanother
website,doesnot
constitute
copyright
infringement.(For
example,providing
alinktoa
photograph
accessibleviaa
photographer’s
website)

Thegeneral
consensus
regardingsimple
hyperlinkingis
thattheownerof
thecopyright
protectedwork
hasgivenan
impliedconsentto
thecommunication
ofthework
throughthe
postingofthis
workonawebsite.

No.
forsimple
embeddingof
copyrightprotected
materialbutanalysis
remainsfactbased
astheremaybe
termsofservice
agreements
prohibitingtheuseof
embeddedlinksor
framing.Itdoesnot
makeadifferenceif
theuserhastotake
anactiontoseethe
content.

N/a.
Fact-specific
Iflogosorbrand
namesareused
toidentifythird
partygoodsand
services,there
couldbetrade-
mark
infringement,
unfaircompetition
orpassingoff
issuesrelatedto
linkingor
embedding,the
outcomeofwhich
willdependon
theapplicationof
theunderlying
basicprinciples
toagivenfactual
situation.

5
Canada

1.Canlinkingconstitutecopyrightinfringement?
No.
Relevantcaselaw:WarmanandNationalPostvFournier2012FC803.

AspertheteachingsoftheSupremeCourtofCanada,morespecificallyinCrookes
v.Newton,theInternetcannotfunctionasintendedwithoutlinks,whichareatthe
coreofhowtheInternetoperates.
Generallyspeaking,alinkcanbeconsideredasafootnote,orsimplyareference
pointinguserstoothersourcesofinformation.Therefore,asimplehyperlinkdoes
not,inandofitself,communicateacopyrightprotectedworktothepublic,nordoesit
reproducesuchawork.
Assuch,theactofprovidingasimplelinktocopyrightprotectedcontent,foundon
anotherwebsite,doesnotconstitutecopyrightinfringement.(Forexample,providing
alinktoaphotographaccessibleviaaphotographer’swebsite)

Thegeneralconsensusregardingsimplehyperlinkingisthattheownerofthe
copyrightprotectedworkhasgivenanimpliedconsenttothecommunicationofthe
workthroughthepostingofthisworkonawebsite.

Furthermore,withregardstohyperlinkinginthecontextofdefamationbut
neverthelessrelevanttothepresentdiscussion,theSupremeCourtofCanadahas
specifiedthat:
“Hyperlinksthussharethesamerelationshipwiththecontenttowhichtheyreferas
doreferences.Bothcommunicatethatsomethingexists,butdonot,bythemselves,
communicateitscontent.”
2.Canembeddingconstitutecopyrightinfringement?

Noforsimpleembeddingofcopyrightprotectedmaterialbutanalysisremainsfact
basedastheremaybetermsofserviceagreementsprohibitingtheuseofembedded
linksorframing.Itdoesnotmakeadifferenceiftheuserhastotakeanactiontosee
thecontent.
RelevantCaseLaw:Century21CanadaLtd.Partnershipv.RogersCommunications,
2011BCSC1196

6
Intheabsenceofaconsistentcaselawonthesubject,thegeneralprinciplestaught
bytheCourtwithregardstolinkingapplytoembeddingandbyproxy,framing.As
such,itwouldgenerallynotbeconsideredcopyrightinfringementto“embed”
copyrightprotectedmaterialinsofarasthecopyrightholderhasmadesuchcontent
availableonlineandthemediumchosentomakeavailablethisworkdoesnot
prohibitembeddingorframinginitstermsofservice.

However,ifembeddingor“framing”isspecificallyprohibitedundera“browsewrap”
or“clickwrap”typetermsofuseagreement,andthatthisagreementisfoundtobe
valid,anyframingorembeddingcouldbecontrarytothesetermsofuseand
thereforeconstitutebreachofcontractandultimatelycopyrightinfringement.

Furthermore,thetype,formatandextentofembedding/framingatissuewillneedto
bestudied.Theselectedmaterialthatisembeddedorframedmaybeconsidereda
derivativeworkunderCanadiancopyrightLawandmoralrightsissueswould
thereforebecomerelevantiftheworkismodifiedinanywaythroughsuch
framing/embedding(ex:ifonlycertainpartsoftheworkareembedded).

3.CanusinglogosorbrandnamescauseIP-lawissues?
FactBased.
RelevantCaseLaw:ImaxCorp.v.Showmax,Inc,2000CanLII14748(FC)

Findings:Theplaintiffarguedthatthearrangementofframingandlinkingcausedthe
viewertobelikelytoinferthatImaxwasresponsiblefor,orwasconnectedwith
Showmax,forthepurposesoftheproposedlarge-formatShowmaxtheatre.The
courtwassatisfiedthatinferencescanbedrawnfromtheevidencesoastoconclude
thatitisreasonablefortheplaintifftoallegetheexistenceofconfusion.Forthe
purposeofshowingaseriousissueandirreparableharm,theCourtconsideredthe
evidenceofconfusionclearandsufficienttosupportaninferenceoflossof”name”
goodwillandreputation.Theapplicationforaninterlocutoryinjunctionwasallowed.

Iflogosorbrandnamesareusedtoidentifythirdpartygoodsandservices,there
couldbetrade-markinfringement,unfaircompetitionorpassingoffissuesrelatedto
linkingorembedding,theoutcomeofwhichwilldependontheapplicationofthe
underlyingbasicprinciplestoagivensituation.
Linkingorembeddingmayconstitutetrade-markinfringementinsituationswhereit
impliestheuseofatrade-markregisteredbyanotherpersonthatcreateconfusionas
tothesourceofwaresorservicesorthatislikelytohavetheeffectofdepreciating
thevalueofthegoodwillattachingthereto.Itmayconstituteunfaircompetitionor
passingoffwhereitamountstoamannertodirectpublicattentiontosomeone’s
wares,servicesorbusinessinsuchawayastobelikelytocauseconfusionwiththe
wares,servicesorbusinessofanother.

7
Ifthereisaclearnotificationthatthelinkingsiteand”embedded”/linkedsiteare
unconnectedthirdparties,itcouldbeconsideredarelevantfactbutitnotnecessarily
determinativeoftheoutcome.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,
marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireet
artistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-
howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,
litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentand
trademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsof
intellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certification
marksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;
licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;
marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.

COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC

8
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)