Rule of law

There are several precedents set regarding one of the issues brought up in my questions- copyright and trademark infringement. It seems commonplace now especially in the fashion industry where there are thousands upon thousands of counterfeits on the black market. The factories making them seem hard to punish because when one shuts down, another one pops up somewhere else to take its place. “Although authors still routinely place the copyright symbol (©) on their works, such a precaution is not necessary in the United States. However, some lawyers still recommend using the copyright symbol because other countries recognize it. Also, the penalties for intentional copyright infringement are heavier than for unintentional violations, and the presence of a copyright notice is evidence that the infringer's actions were intentional” (Page 506).  It is vital for a large brand to protect itself internationally against design thieves especially since it is quite prevalent in large countries like China where intellectual property is not as upheld as it is in the European Union or United States.

It is interesting to note the affect that the internet is having in creating more opportunities for infringement and pirating to happen. “Once again, the Internet is challenging intellectual property laws that were not conceived with this technology in mind” (Page 511). There is a continuing grey line as to where the responsibility lies in the seeking of damages regarding copyright infringement. In 2011, a precedent was set regarding third party liability among internet piracy. The case, Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011), intended to prove that an internet server was liable for damages because they willfully allowed web domains from China sell counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods. Lawyers representing Louis Vuitton sent those owning the server eighteen notices regarding the infringement but they went unheeded. The courts eventually found in the luxury brands favor stating:

“First, with regard to the contributory trademark infringement claim, the Court noted that “websites are not ethereal; while they exist, virtually, in cyberspace, they would not exist at all without physical roots in servers and internet services. . . . Appellants had direct control over the ‘master switch’ that kept websites online and available.” Therefore, the servers themselves, as distinct from the infringing websites, were a “means of infringement” under federal trademark law. Second, with regard to both claims, the Court held that defendants' assertion, that "contribution to infringement must be intentional for liability to arise", was without merit. Rather, proof that defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that the users of their services were engaging in infringements or knowingly failed to prevent infringing actions is sufficient. Third, with regard to the contributory copyright infringement claim, the Court maintained that, as is the case with trademark law, "intent may be imputed" because of the knowing failure to prevent infringement and “there is no question that providing direct infringers with server space” constitutes a material contribution to direct infringement because this "substantially assists" direct infringement”               (http://www.fashionapparellawblog.com/2012/01/articles/fashion-cases/louis-vuitton-sets-a- new-standard-in-federal-trademark-and-copyright-law/).

This shows that the laws are catching up to the ever evolving technology making it easier for intellectual piracy. In the end, this may not stop all counterfeits hitting the black market, but it sends a clear message. Intellectual property is valuable and worth protecting. Big brands such as Louis Vuitton will go through extensive measures to attack any kind of infringement upon their designs and trademark.