<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="b2/0.6.1" -->
<rdf:RDF
	xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php">

	<title>iBusiness Law -- i.e., Internet Law, Cyberlaw, etc.</title>
	<link>http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php</link>
	<description>All the Internet Law that's Fit to Print</description>
	<dc:language>en</dc:language>
	<dc:date>2008-05-14T00:14:34</dc:date>
	<dc:creator>jbender@ibusinesslawyer.com</dc:creator>
	<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://cafelog.com/?v=0.6.1"/>
	<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:jbender@ibusinesslawyer.com"/>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>

	<items>
		<rdf:Seq>
					<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=25&amp;c=1"/>
					<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=23&amp;c=1"/>
					<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=22&amp;c=1"/>
					<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=21&amp;c=1"/>
					<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=20&amp;c=1"/>
					<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=19&amp;c=1"/>
					<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=18&amp;c=1"/>
					<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=17&amp;c=1"/>
					<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=16&amp;c=1"/>
					<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=15&amp;c=1"/>
				</rdf:Seq>
	</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=25&amp;c=1">
	<title>More from the 9th Circuit on the CDA</title>
	<link>http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=25&amp;c=1</link>
	<dc:date>2003-10-27T19:11:07</dc:date>
	<dc:creator>iBusinessLawyer (mailto:jben&#100;&#101;r&#64;ibu&#115;i&#110;&#101;ssl&#97;wy&#101;&#114;&#46;co&#109;)</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject>CDA</dc:subject>
	<description>[This post was originally published 8/16/03 -- somehow the original post was deleted from the blog]

The 9th Circuit held earlier this week that Section 230 of the CDA immunizes an online dating service from liability arising out of statements made by its users.  Carafano v. Metrosplash, No. CV-01-00018-DT (9th ...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[[This post was originally published 8/16/03 &#8211; somehow the original post was deleted from the blog]<br />
<br />
The 9th Circuit held earlier this week that Section 230 of the CDA immunizes an online dating service from liability arising out of statements made by its users.  <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/23FE0B8E8A5093C188256D810068FB6F/$file/0255658.pdf?openelement" target="_blank">Carafano v. Metrosplash</a>, No. CV-01-00018-DT (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2003).  The holding, although not as striking as that in the Court&#8217;s recent <a href="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=20&amp;more=1" target="_blank">Batzel</a> decision, further highlights  <a href="/b2rdf.php?p=25&#38;more=1#more25"></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=23&amp;c=1">
	<title>Holding on Property Status of Domain Names is Bad News for NSI</title>
	<link>http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=23&amp;c=1</link>
	<dc:date>2003-07-29T02:34:26</dc:date>
	<dc:creator>iBusinessLawyer (mailto:j&#98;ende&#114;&#64;ib&#117;s&#105;n&#101;&#115;s&#108;a&#119;&#121;&#101;&#114;.c&#111;m)</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject>Domain Names</dc:subject>
	<description>The 9th held last Friday that a domain name registrant may sue a registrar, NSI, for conversion of the registrant's domain name.  Kremen v. Cohen, CV-98-20718-JW (9th Cir.  Jul. 25, 2003).  The case turned on whether a domain name is a species of "property" susceptible to conversion. ...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<title></title>The 9th held last Friday that a domain name registrant may sue a registrar, NSI, for conversion of the registrant&#8217;s domain name.  <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/999D1D5B0D734B6088256D6D0078CB88/$file/0115899.pdf?openelement" target="_blank">Kremen v. Cohen</a>, CV-98-20718-JW (9th Cir.  Jul. 25, 2003).  The case turned on whether a domain name is a species of &#8220;property&#8221; susceptible to conversion.  In an opinion written by Judge Kozinski, the 9th Circuit agreed with Kremen that domain names are such a species.  <br />
<br />
Judge Kozinksi is a former chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims, where takings claims against the government are litigated, and so knows from property rights (he is also, incidentally, a <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/3700/entry/78715/" target="_blank">proto-blogger</a>).  The judge can be a funny guy, and the opinion is a hoot to read; given its implications, however, NSI and other registrars are unlikely to  <a href="/b2rdf.php?p=23&#38;more=1#more23"></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=22&amp;c=1">
	<title>More From the 4th Circuit on the Preeminence of US Law and US Courts in Domain Disputes</title>
	<link>http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=22&amp;c=1</link>
	<dc:date>2003-07-25T22:18:32</dc:date>
	<dc:creator>iBusinessLawyer (mailto:&#106;b&#101;&#110;&#100;e&#114;&#64;i&#98;us&#105;&#110;ess&#108;&#97;wye&#114;&#46;com)</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject>Domain Names</dc:subject>
	<description>The 4th Circuit recently solidified the principle it first articulated in May that, so long as personal jurisdiction is available, US law governs entirely any domain dispute brought in a US court.  Hawes v. NSI, No. 02-1182 (4th Cir. Jul. 9, 2003).  Moreover, by virtue of US companies' ...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit recently solidified the principle it first <a href="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=18&amp;more=1" target="_top">articulated</a> in May that, so long as personal jurisdiction is available, US law governs entirely any domain dispute brought in a US court.  <a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/4th/021182p.html" target="_top">Hawes v. NSI</a>, No. 02-1182 (4th Cir. Jul. 9, 2003).  Moreover, by virtue of US companies' control over the registry system for generic top-level domains, the holding in <i>Hawes</i> permits a US court to recover control over a domain name even if the domain is registered by a foreign citizen through a foreign registrar.   <a href="/b2rdf.php?p=22&#38;more=1#more22"></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=21&amp;c=1">
	<title>California Retethers Internet &#8220;Tresspass to Chattels&#8221; to Chattels</title>
	<link>http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=21&amp;c=1</link>
	<dc:date>2003-07-03T03:07:55</dc:date>
	<dc:creator>iBusinessLawyer (mailto:&#106;&#98;end&#101;&#114;&#64;i&#98;&#117;s&#105;n&#101;ssl&#97;w&#121;er&#46;&#99;o&#109;)</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject>General</dc:subject>
	<description>The Supreme Court of California held earlier this week that mass e-mails do not constitute trespass to chattels unless they damage the recipient's computer equipment.  Intel v. Hamidi, S103781 (Ca. Jun. 30, 2003) [Briefs available here].  In doing so, the court braked a judicial trend to extend trespass ...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of California held earlier this week that mass e-mails do not constitute trespass to chattels unless they damage the recipient&#8217;s computer equipment.  <a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S103781.PDF" target="_top">Intel v. Hamidi</a>, S103781 (Ca. Jun. 30, 2003) [Briefs available <a href=" http://www.intelhamidi.com">here</a>].  In doing so, the court braked a judicial trend to extend trespass law to cover unsolicited website visits or e-mail.  Nevertheless, a close read of the decision suggests that it may exert little effect on the options available to plaintiffs situated similarly to Intel.  <a href="/b2rdf.php?p=21&#38;more=1#more21"></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=20&amp;c=1">
	<title>A Ninth Circuit Gloss on the CDA</title>
	<link>http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=20&amp;c=1</link>
	<dc:date>2003-06-27T13:47:03</dc:date>
	<dc:creator>iBusinessLawyer (mailto:&#106;&#98;e&#110;de&#114;&#64;i&#98;usi&#110;&#101;&#115;sl&#97;w&#121;&#101;r&#46;c&#111;m)</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject>CDA</dc:subject>
	<description>"There is no reason inherent in the technological features of cyberspace why First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than in the brick and mortar world[,]" the 9th Circuit began an opinion earlier this week.  Batzel v. Cremers, CV-00-09590-SVW (9th Cir. Jun. 24, 2003).  Congress, ...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA["There is no reason inherent in the technological features of cyberspace why First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than in the brick and mortar world[,]" the 9th Circuit began an opinion earlier this week.  <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0156380p.pdf" target="_top">Batzel v. Cremers</a>, CV-00-09590-SVW (9th Cir. Jun. 24, 2003).  Congress, the Court observed, had other ideas, which it embodied in <a href="http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/zeran/47usc230.htm" target="_top">Section 230</a> of the CDA.  In a lengthy opinion, a split panel of the 9th Circuit extended Section 230&#8217;s reach farther than any other circuit, to encompass any individual who publishes information on the Internet that is sent to her by a third party, so long as she reasonably believed the sender  <a href="/b2rdf.php?p=20&#38;more=1#more20"></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=19&amp;c=1">
	<title>Clarity and Good Sense from the 4th Circuit on ACPA</title>
	<link>http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=19&amp;c=1</link>
	<dc:date>2003-06-03T22:45:12</dc:date>
	<dc:creator>iBusinessLawyer (mailto:jb&#101;nd&#101;r&#64;&#105;bu&#115;&#105;n&#101;&#115;s&#108;a&#119;&#121;er&#46;&#99;&#111;m)</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject>Domain Names</dc:subject>
	<description>The Fourth Circuit yesterday reversed one of the most outrageous cybersquatting decisions to emerge from the Eastern District of Virginia.  Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, No. 02-1396 (4th. Cir. Jun. 2, 2003). The appellate decision stands as perhaps the most cogent statement of the jurisdictional and substantive ...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Fourth Circuit yesterday reversed one of the most outrageous cybersquatting decisions to emerge from the Eastern District of Virginia.  <a href="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021396.P.pdf" target="_top">Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona</a>, No. 02-1396 (4th. Cir. Jun. 2, 2003). The appellate decision stands as perhaps the most cogent statement of the jurisdictional and substantive basis for &#8220;review&#8221; of UDRP decisions by  <a href="/b2rdf.php?p=19&#38;more=1#more19"></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=18&amp;c=1">
	<title>The Fourth Circuit Uber Alles II: Trademarks as the Functional Equivalent of SARS</title>
	<link>http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=18&amp;c=1</link>
	<dc:date>2003-05-20T03:02:49</dc:date>
	<dc:creator>iBusinessLawyer (mailto:j&#98;&#101;nd&#101;&#114;&#64;ibus&#105;nessl&#97;wyer&#46;c&#111;&#109;)</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject>Domain Names</dc:subject>
	<description>My first post to this blog pointed to a New York Times article entitled "The Power of the Fourth."  The article covered "the Fourth Circuit[, which] is considered the shrewdest, most aggressively conservative federal appeals court in the nation."  I noted that the 4th Circuit was particularly important ...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[My <a href="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?s=4th&amp;submit=search">first post</a> to this blog pointed to a New York Times article entitled &#8220;The Power of the Fourth.&#8221;  The article covered &#8220;the Fourth Circuit[, which] is considered the shrewdest, most aggressively conservative federal appeals court in the nation.&#8221;  I noted that the 4th Circuit was particularly important to domain name law because so many domain disputes are amenable to jurisdiction in Virginia.  <br />
<br />
And the 4th Circuit did not disappoint.  Yesterday, the court issued a decision in a UDRP review case that is shrewd, aggressively conservative, and particularly important to domain name law.  The decision explodes the reach of ACPA and, in fact, of the Lanham Act generally.  <br />
<br />
A split panel of the court announced that the Lanham Act&#8217;s &#8220;use in commerce&#8221; requirement is met by a foreign company that advertises in the US but does no business there, so long as the foreign company has done business with Americans abroad.  <a href="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021364.P.pdf">Int'l Bancorp, LLC v. Societe Des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco</a> No. 02-1364 (4th Cir. May 19, 2003)[case citation via <a href="http://appellateblog.blogspot.com/" target="_top">How Appealing</a>]. These Americans would return home, Judge Motz opined in dissent, carrying the trademark rights they created &#8220;like some sort of foreign influenza[.]&#8221; <a href="/b2rdf.php?p=18&#38;more=1#more18"></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=17&amp;c=1">
	<title>Ninth Circuit Metatag Decision  &#8211;> Pay-Per-Click Comparative Advertising Unlawful?</title>
	<link>http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=17&amp;c=1</link>
	<dc:date>2003-05-15T22:00:07</dc:date>
	<dc:creator>iBusinessLawyer (mailto:j&#98;e&#110;&#100;e&#114;&#64;&#105;b&#117;&#115;&#105;n&#101;&#115;slawy&#101;&#114;.&#99;om)</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject>Metatags / Search</dc:subject>
	<description>The 9th Circuit recently upheld a lower court finding that use of a competitor's trademark in a website's text and metatags constituted trademark infringement.  Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini, CV-00-00372-VAP (9th Cir. May 9, 2003).  The decision raises the stakes for parties that use a competitor's mark for ...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The 9th Circuit recently upheld a lower court finding that use of a competitor&#8217;s trademark in a website&#8217;s text and metatags constituted trademark infringement.  <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0156733p.pdf" title="Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini">Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini</a>, CV-00-00372-VAP (9th Cir. May 9, 2003).  The decision raises the stakes for parties that use a competitor&#8217;s mark for comparative advertising.     <a href="/b2rdf.php?p=17&#38;more=1#more17"></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=16&amp;c=1">
	<title>'Tis Better to PUT than to GET, but it&#8217;s the Contractual Thought that Counts</title>
	<link>http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=16&amp;c=1</link>
	<dc:date>2003-05-14T00:55:04</dc:date>
	<dc:creator>iBusinessLawyer (mailto:j&#98;ende&#114;&#64;ib&#117;&#115;in&#101;ssl&#97;w&#121;e&#114;.&#99;o&#109;)</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject>General</dc:subject>
	<description>A First Circuit decision suggests that online service providers should either be very careful what they promise or be very thorough about beta testing before they make the promises.  The court, in In Re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litigation, No. 02-2138 (1st Cir. 2003), held that Pharmatrak, a website statistics ...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[A First Circuit decision suggests that online service providers should either be very careful what they promise or be <i>very</i> thorough about beta testing before they make the promises.  The court, in <a href="http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/022138.html">In Re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litigation</a>, No. 02-2138 (1st Cir. 2003), held that Pharmatrak, a website statistics provider for several pharmaceutical companies, intercepted Internet communications without consent in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. &#167;&#167; 2511, 2520 (2000).<br />
<br />
ECPA expands anti-wiretapping protections to electronic communications.  It is unlawful under ECPA to intercept communications between two parties intentionally if neither consents to the interception.<br />
<br />
The pharma companies hired Pharmatrak to monitor visitors to the pharma companies' sites via cookies and web bugs. <a href="/b2rdf.php?p=16&#38;more=1#more16"></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=15&amp;c=1">
	<title>Trio of Jurisdiction Decisions</title>
	<link>http://ibusinesslaw.info/index.php?p=15&amp;c=1</link>
	<dc:date>2003-04-22T16:41:19</dc:date>
	<dc:creator>iBusinessLawyer (mailto:&#106;&#98;&#101;nd&#101;&#114;&#64;i&#98;&#117;si&#110;es&#115;l&#97;wy&#101;r&#46;c&#111;m)</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject>Jurisdiction</dc:subject>
	<description>The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and district courts in Maine and Illinois handed down Internet jurisdiction decisions this month.  See Hockerson-Halberdt, Inc. v. Propet USA, Inc., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7277 (Apr. 1, 2003); Cecil McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6123 ...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and district courts in Maine and Illinois handed down Internet jurisdiction decisions this month.  <i>See Hockerson-Halberdt, Inc. v. Propet USA, Inc.</i>, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7277 (Apr. 1, 2003); <i>Cecil McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd.</i>, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6123 (D. Me. Apr. 14, 2003); <i>Caterpillar Inc., v. Mishkin Scraper Works, Inc.</i>, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6174 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2003).  These nominally unrelated cases suggest a few lessons taken together.  <a href="/b2rdf.php?p=15&#38;more=1#more15"></a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>