EU court ruling 'blow' for eBay

12 July 2011 Last updated at 18:05 GMT Intellectual property specialists said the verdict was a blow to eBay Websites such as eBay may be liable for trademark infringements if they play an "active role" in promoting fake goods, the European Court of Justice has said.

The court's ruling came in response to a case brought by French cosmetics giant L'Oreal against eBay in the UK.

L'Oreal claims eBay is liable for sales on its website of counterfeit goods and "parallel imports" - L'Oreal products not intended for sale in the EU.

EBay said the court gave "some clarity" while others saw it as a "blow".

L'Oreal said it was "satisfied" with the ruling.

"This decision is in line with the position L'Oreal has taken for several years and is applicable in courts throughout the European Union," a company spokesman said.

Clarification

In May 2009, the High Court in the UK ruled that eBay was not jointly liable for the sale of any counterfeit L'Oreal products through its website, but said that the online marketplace could do more to stop trademark infringement.

The High Court asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to clarify the obligations of internet marketplaces under EU law.

In a statement, the ECJ said that it was for national courts to order online shopping sites to take measures to prevent trademark infringements.

But it also said that companies such as eBay were deemed to play an "active role" for instance by "optimising the presentation of the online offers for sale or promoting those offers".

"When the operator has played an 'active role' of that kind, it cannot rely on the exemption from liability which EU law confers, under certain conditions, on online service providers such as operators of internet marketplaces," the court said.

'Level playing field'

Stefan Krawczyk, senior director at eBay Europe, said: "The judgement provides some clarity on certain issues, and ensures that all brands can be traded online in Europe.

"As a marketplace, eBay provides a level playing field for all online sellers and will continue building constructive partnerships to expand the range of brands being sold on eBay."

Kirsten Gilbert, partner at Marks & Clerk Solicitors, which specialises in intellectual property, said the verdict was a blow to eBay.

"Brands have been concerned for years now that the internet has facilitated the trade of counterfeit goods," she said.

"Items which would otherwise be available only from back-street traders have become instantly available to consumers in the privacy of their own homes.

"L'Oreal and other brand owners will be hoping that online marketplaces like eBay now sit up and pay attention to the sales of counterfeit items which go through their sites."

View the original article here

Birmingham City's Yeung in court

30 June 2011 Last updated at 08:26 GMT Carson Yeung is Birmingham City FC's largest single shareholder Birmingham City FC's president Carson Yeung has appeared in court in Hong Kong on money-laundering charges.

Mr Yeung was bailed by the Eastern Court in his home city after being charged with five counts.

BBC correspondent Annemarie Evans said he had been arrested by the narcotic bureau's financial investigations unit at his home.

Mr Yeung took control of the English football club, which was relegated to the Championship in May, in 2009.

'Tax issue'

The trial has been adjourned until 11 August.

Ms Evans said all five charges related to money laundering with the amount involved being up to ?59m.

She said Mr Yeung had not entered a plea and little about the details of the charges was known.

News agency Reuters reported Mr Yeung's lawyer, Daniel Marash, as saying that it seemed to be a tax issue.

"All they're saying is that he has got a lot of money, and he hasn't paid a lot of tax," he said.

"I mean there's lots of money in my bank account, not as much as his, but I don't pay taxes because it's not taxable."

'Unrelated to club'

He also said trade in shares of the club's parent company, suspended on Thursday, may start again now he has been bailed.

Earlier, a statement put out by Birmingham City's acting chairman, Peter Pannu, said he believed the police inquiries in Hong Kong were nothing to do with the club's parent company or subsidiaries.

He said he had been informed by lawyers that Mr Yeung was assisting with inquiries that had nothing to do with Birmingham International Holdings Limited (BIHL) in Hong Kong and therefore nothing to do with the operation of the club.

Mr Yeung worked in England as a teenager before becoming a hairstylist in Hong Kong. He made his fortune through investing in nearby Macau in the 1990s.

He is Birmingham's largest single shareholder with a 26.3% stake.

View the original article here

Microsoft to pay $290m court fine

9 June 2011 Last updated at 23:37 GMT Microsoft had sought to lower the standard of evidence required to invalidate patent in the US The US Supreme Court has denied an appeal by Microsoft against a $290m verdict for infringing a small Canadian company's patent.

The company, i4i, sued Microsoft in 2007, saying it owned the technology behind a text manipulation tool used in Microsoft's Word application.

The technology gave Word 2003 and Word 2007 users an improved way of using a document's contents.

Lower courts had said Microsoft wilfully breached the patent.

They ordered the world's biggest software maker to pay up, and to stop selling versions of Word containing the infringing technology.

'Clear and convincing'

Microsoft claimed a judge used the wrong standard in instructing the jury that decided on the award, and said the judgement should be overturned.

It pushed for a lower standard of proof of infringement to be used instead, arguing that the level of proof usually required to overturn a patent in the US was too high.

Defendants in US patent suits are required to show that 70-80% of the "clear and convincing" evidence supports their case.

Microsoft argued that they should only need to show a "preponderance" of the evidence - more than 50% - was in its favour.

However, the Supreme Court said the "clear and convincing" standard was the correct one.

Prior to the decision, President Obama's administration had called for the court to uphold the higher standard of proof.

Microsoft said in a statement: "While the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation."

Microsoft now sells versions of Word that do not contain the technology in question.

Loudon Owen, chairman of i4i, welcomed the outcome: "Microsoft tried to gut the value of patents by introducing a lower standard for invalidating patents.

"It is now 100% clear that you can only invalidate a patent based on 'clear and convincing' evidence."

View the original article here