Legally Insightful

WHY SHAKESPEARE WAS WRONG ABOUT DOMAIN NAMES “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” Shakespeare wrote this verse over 400 hundred years ago, and we still hear it today. Unfortunately, when it comes to domain names, Shakespeare was dead wrong. In fact, contrary to what Elizabethan playwrights will tell you, names are essential, and the specifics of a name can be the determining factor in whether you can register a domain name or not. But why does this matter? Shouldn’t we accept that perhaps the teachings in his poetry don’t fully cover the technicalities of dealing with new media? To put it simply, no. Shakespeare was wrong, and it must be said because sweeping changes are coming into play regarding how domain names are licensed and if you own a website, there is a good chance that it may affect you too. But firstly… What is a Domain Name? A domain name is the string of words that defines the boundaries of the website. When you go to ‘www.g...

Diamonds are Forever, and so are the court cases about them As the Tiffany & Co v Costco trademark/counterfeit case enters its 8th year of litigation, one thing is becoming obvious, that it isn’t going to stop any time soon.  On one side, a 183-year old company arguing that its branding has not fallen into common usage, a death knell in terms of copyright protection and on the other a warehouse company arguably most famous for the fantastic and affordable food court. But what is this all about? Sometime in 2013, Costco begun selling diamond rings, with a setting (how the gem is held on the ring) labelled ‘Tiffany’, a reference to the very famous way that Tiffany & Co had been setting their diamond rings. In response, Tiffany & Co commenced counterfeit proceedings against Costco on Valentine’s Day that year. Costco immediately pulled the diamond rings, crushing the dreams of those who wished to buy an engagement ring, three toasters and a 10-pack of shampoo all in the sa...

A recent case in the United States District Court of Massachusetts has seen a woman whose house was used as a film set for adult videos without her knowledge be awarded damages… but not for what you think. In  Bassett v Jensen,  Ms Bassett, the owner of the property, signed an agreement with a renter to lease her Martha's Vineyard property for seven months for the sole use of Mr Spafford and his family. Spafford had moved to Martha's Vineyard to work as a photographer and cameraman for an adult film director. Throughout the lease, Ms Bassett claims that 21 different videos were filmed at her property. Following the end of the Lease, Ms Bassett had to stop renting out the property as there was significant damage caused to the building and later due to the publicity that the property was used in filming the videos. Ms Bassett then argued that not only did the video showcase her property but they had infringed her copyright on numerous of her self-made artworks which were hangin...