CyberLaw P.C. - Internet Lawyer, Intellectual Property Law Firm

I was recently quoted on the FTC's proposed "Do Not Track" list in the Maryland Daily Record (subscription required). The proposed "Do Not Track" list is a follow-up proposal in light of the success of the "Do Not Call" list. The proposal would allow consumers to notify advertisers that they do not want their personal information shared for online marketing purposes. The article discusses a variety of viewpoints as to the necessity of such regulation and looks at the potential difficulties with implementing such a list.

My quote in the article points out that advertisers' fears about implementation of a "Do Not Track" list are probably a bit overstated. Consumers that are on the "Do Not Call" list are among those least likely to respond to a phone advertisement and being on the "Do Not Call" list is a free way for advertisers to eliminate people least likely to be good telephone sales prospects. I suspect that the same principle will be true of people that actively maintain membership on a "Do Not Track" list.

I am often contacted by potential clients that discover that ostensibly “private” information on social networks, particularly Facebook and Twitter, has become public, often to the potential client’s detriment. The content has often become public because a third-party, including other Facebook or Twitter users, or a third party blog, reposts the information, often in a negative light.

Content of concern to potential clients often includes an inappropriate photograph, or a now-regretful Facebook comment or Twitter post. I also routinely see concerns about direct messages on Twitter or wall-posts on Facebook. In most cases, the potential client asks what can be done to remove the offending content.

Unfortunately, there is usually little chance to remove such content because there is no legal basis on which to base demands for removal. Information that a user generates and publicly posts is generally not legally protected from further dissemination or commentary, except in very special cases where other legal principles such as copyright protection, false light or defamation may apply. If you have questions about your specific situation, contact a privacy attorney here at CyberLaw PC.

Potential clients are often frustrated to hear that opportunity for removal is limited and ask what can be done to prevent future scenarios. I generally offer three main tips to such potential clients:

First, you should always assume that ANY content you post or share on the Internet can become public. Whether it is e-mail, a photograph, a video or simple text, any document shared digitally, even amongst friends, can often find itself becoming viral, replicated thousands of times as it is shared via e-mail and other electronic means. Search for Karen Owen’s “List”, for one such example of an unintended viral consequence.

Second, I generally do not recommend that you issue any type of takedown notice unless you are confident that you have a colorable legal justification for doing so. Individuals that were willing to post the original content in a negative light are quite likely to post your takedown notice as well, compounding the problem. More importantly, there is little chance that the content will be removed as a result of the takedown notice.

Finally, I strongly recommend that EVERYONE that maintains any type of Internet presence register and develop the .com version of their full name. For example, if your name is John Smith, I would recommend that you register JohnSmith.com. If your name is similarly common to John Smith, you may want to use your profession, location or middle initial or name. For example, AttorneyJohnSmith.com or JohnSmithWashingtonDC.com, or JohnMSmith.com.  Prominent individuals at start up companies or firms with strong figure heads may also want to do the same.  

Once the name is registered, be sure to occasionally post newsworthy information about yourself using simple blogging software such as Wordpress or Joomla. In most cases, you website will rise very quickly to the top of the search results when people search for you by name and will give you the opportunity to have the opportunity to share “your side of the story” as to any criticism you receive for uncontrolled content or other issues that may arise.

Many people, particularly professionals such as doctors, lawyers, accountants and journalists, will receive some type of negative online attention, warranted or not, at some point in their lives. While an unfortunate reality, taking steps to maintain control of your content and being prepared to proactively respond to criticism makes good sense in both a personal and business context.

CyberLaw P.C. recently launched a new website, available at USCopyrightGroupDefense.Com, aimed at providing information about U.S. Copyright Group and its copyright infringement cases against numerous John Doe defendants. The site features general information about U.S. Copyright Group, including details about the parties, ISPs and works involved in many of its cases, most of which are filed in Washington, D.C. The site provides simple and straightforward information about U.S. Copyright Group cases, including possible defenses.

The site also advertises the availability of a low-cost individual phone consultation option for U.S. Copyright Group defendants. The phone consultation is always with a copyright attorney with defense experience against U.S. Copyright Group. The offer is designed to assist individual defendants, many of whom may not be entirely familiar with the legal process or copyright law, in understanding their individual case and evaluating options for best handling the matter in a cost-effective way.

I’m a bit late to discuss this, but I aim to give it appropriately detailed attention now. In Charter Communications, Inc. v. CK Ventures Inc. / Charterbusiness.com the Hon Neil Brown QC, a respected UDRP Panelist, cited my prior post on the potential applicability of laches as a defense to a UDRP complaint:

This panelist was part of a majority in Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. FanMail.com, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-1139 that felt that there is scope for looking again at the assumption that laches has no part to play in UDRP proceedings, a decision that has been the subject of at least one commentary at “www.cyberlawonline.com” and which may stimulate some debate.

My article to which the Hon. Neil Brown specifically refers is entitled “A Potential New Defense Under UDRP.”

The Charterbusiness.com matter involved a case where the complainant had waited approximately seven years to file its complaint. While recognizing that laches “is not generally recognized under the Policy” Respondent, correctly in my view, raised a laches defense. The majority rejected the defense, citing decisions in The E.W. Scripps Company v. Sinologic Industries and Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods. Panelist Brown issued a separate opinion. Notably, he opined:

Without going into it in detail here, it may be time for a closer examination of [laches] and whether it is appropriate to exclude it as a defence in cases where the complainant has waited years before filing a complaint.

For better or for worse, a laches defense continues to be a topic of discussion in UDRP decisions. As a result, two questions arise. First, does such a defense make sense in a UDRP context? Second, what is a rational defense practitioner to do?

On the first issue, I am of the opinion that a laches defense, or some related “time-limit” protection, such as a statute of limitations, makes sense in a UDRP context. The present policy effectively allows a complainant to wait for an eternity before filing a case. While there is certainly some unfairness to a respondent in such situations, there is also the added potential problem of “spoliation” of evidence. Furthermore, the preclusion of a laches defense (or a related statute of limitations) has the effect of failing to motivate a mark holder to pursue the action in a timely manner. For example, an unscrupulous mark holder might take advantage of an unsuspecting domain owner by allowing development of the domain prior to the filing of a complaint and potential seizure of the name.

On the other hand, I certainly appreciate the counterarguments that the UDRP policy does not specifically provide for a laches defense or that the specific factual inquiries may be problematic in the context of an arbitration proceeding that is designed to favor efficiency.

In my view, however, the implementation of a laches defense would not be a terrible hindrance to the goals of an efficient arbitration proceeding. In many cases the inquiry could be almost as simple as calculating the time between the registration date of the domain name and the date the complaint was filed. Furthermore, arbitrators regularly decline to reach certain conclusions about, for example, potential trademark infringement or unrelated business disputes when the facts of the matter exceed the scope of the policy. In the end, I see little reason that a laches defense could not be considered in a UDRP context when the circumstances warrant.

The second issue, of particular interest to practitioners, requires us to consider the appropriate course of action when it comes to a UDRP defense. I’m of the opinion that when you or your client has a colorable laches defense, it is proper to raise it. While I appreciate that laches is “not generally recognized under the Policy,” it is also clear enough that the defense of laches is at least “in play.” UDRP respondents would be wise to use that status to their advantage when appropriate.