Internet Lawyer Blog

Buyer’s Remorse and Contract Cancellation Rights

Published on: June 3, 2013 | by Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh

A buyer who has ever committed to a wrong purchase knows the nagging feeling that accompanies the realization that committing to the purchase of a product was entirely unnecessary. Often informally referred to as “Buyer’s Remorse,” this feeling of extreme regret usually accompanies very expensive purchases, such as automobiles or real estate. Recognizing that consumers do not always make the soundest purchases, the California legislature has provided state laws that give consumers the right to cancel certain contracts after a short period of time (i.e., cooling-off period) if those contracts fall under the Buyer’s Remorse exception.

What Types of Contracts Fall Under the Buyer’s Remorse Exception?

Whether or not a contract falls under the Buyer’s Remorse exception is entirely up to the governing law in a jurisdiction. For example, California does not provide a cancellation period for automobile sales and leases. Unless a specific dealership or lease agreement provides otherwise, buyers do not have the option to cancel an automobile sale or lease without first showing legal cause. In looking to determine whether a buyer may cancel a contract after a showing of legal cause, courts will often look for instances of fraud, undue influence, illegality, or a breach of a duty. However, under California Civil Code section 1689.6(a), buyers maintain the right to cancel a contract from door-to-door sales within three days. The intent of this statute is to protect buyers from overly ambitious salespeople and give buyers the opportunity to reflect on their purchases without the overbearing presence of the salesperson.

Cyber Threats: Phishing and Spoofing

Published on: May 27, 2013 | by Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh

As cyberspace becomes a larger part of everyday life, the threat of cybercrimes becomes more prevalent. Consumers conduct all sorts of business over the Internet, which involves storing and transferring personal information on various online sites. Accordingly, the wealth of personal information available over the Internet has drawn in a new type of crime–phishing and spoofing. Cybercriminals disguise as other people, or legitimate business entities, and they entice consumers to give out personal information, such as bank account numbers. These tactics also help cybercriminals steal people’s identities.

What is the Difference Between Phishing and Spoofing?

Phishing is the practice of posing as a legitimate business entity to trick consumers into turning over personal information, such as passwords and bank account numbers. The cybercriminals then use this information to break into accounts and transfer money. They may also use this personal information to apply for credit cards, spend extravagant amounts of money, and ruin people’s credit. This is how cyber criminals perpetuate identify theft through phishing. With the right personal or financial information, cybercriminals disguise as other people, building up exorbitant debt against the victim.

Website Copyrights

Published on: May 20, 2013 | by Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh

Copyright protection is commonly known to apply to inventions and artwork to protect original work from copyright infringement. However, copyright protections also extend to websites. Today, the Internet, and especially personal websites extend to all avenues of the marketplace. Individuals have blogs, businesses have websites to advertise and inform about their services, and professionals maintain websites with personal information and updates in their field of work. All of this content is subject to copyright protection and copyright infringement.

Why is it Appropriate to Copyright a Website?

Anytime a website contains unique and original content, it is subject to copyright infringement. Therefore, anytime a website owner is looking to protect the text, sound, or design contained on a website, it is appropriate to copyright the website. Website owners may also have the option to copyright portions of a website, specifically the portions of the website that are original rather than a template. Often several different parties will contribute to a website by working on different aspects. Therefore, to ease the copyright process, it is often helpful to determine authorship and ownership before creating the website. For instance, a developer may own the code for the site, a designer may own the graphical and creative aspects of the site, and the owner of the site may own the content or material. Establishing ownership will make it easier to copyright the different portions of the website.

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Changes the Face of U.S. Patent Law

Published on: May 13, 2013 | by Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh

The central provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “AIA”) went into effect in March 2013, revolutionizing the United States patent system. Traditionally, the United States had maintained a “first-to-invent” patent system, which awarded patent rights to the first inventor who created a unique invention. However, as the AIA went into effect, not only did the statute change the effects of U.S. patent law, but it also affected how inventors will make the decision of whether to file patents.

How Does the AIA Change the U.S. Patent System?

Before this new provision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) awarded patents to the individual or entity that invented first, rather than the individual or entity that filed an application for a patent first. Now, an inventor could lose patent rights to another inventor who potentially created the same invention later in time, but managed to file a patent application for the same invention sooner. Essentially, regardless of who conceptualized an invention first, the first to submit a good-faith patent application secures patent rights.

Recent Cases in Cybersquatting

Published on: May 6, 2013 | by Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh

Cybersquatting has been a highly litigated issue since Congress passed the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (the “ACPA”) in 1999, codified under Title 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). The ACPA establishes a cause of action for the bad faith registration of a domain name that is substantially similar to a trademark or personal name.

Under What Circumstances Will Courts Hold Domain Name Registrants Liable Under the ACPA?

In Xereas v. Heiss, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that the ACPA extends to include all registrations of a domain name, not just the initial registration. This federal law’s intent to diminish cybersquatting suggests that the ACPA meant to protect property interests in domain names throughout subsequent registrations.

International Websites and U.S. Internet Laws

Published on: April 28, 2013 | by Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh

Any company conducting e-commerce with consumers in the United States must follow the applicable U.S. Internet laws. Otherwise, the company and its managers may face civil liability and criminal prosecution for violating U.S. laws. However, in the event that a business’s website is also accessible internationally, that business may also need to comply with applicable international Internet and business regulations.

Online businesses should be aware of issues relating to contracts, intellectual property violations (e.g., patent, trademark and copyright), email, spam, antitrust, privacy issues, affiliate marketing programs, online fraud, cyber piracy, cloud computing, cybersquatting, compliance and regulatory actions. For example, if a business uses an image or text on its website, it must ensure that doing so does not violate any copyright or trademark laws.

There are also jurisdictional considerations affecting websites in American and international markets. Different countries have different approaches for determining whether respective courts have jurisdiction over Internet material. Generally, jurisdictional considerations will take into account the physical locations of parties. Although, a website is not a physical being, it nonetheless maintains a physical presence in its operations. As such, an Internet transaction over a website may implicate three different jurisdictional laws: (1) the laws that apply to the user’s physical location, (2) the laws that apply to the server’s physical location, and (3) the laws that apply to the business’s physical location. In the event that a business does not maintain any physical location, courts will look to the owner or manager’s location, or the location of any warehouse that helps facilitate business. For instance, websites such as Amazon and eBay may charge a sales tax on an online transaction if such a company maintains a physical presence in a jurisdiction that charges sales tax. In February 2, 1998, in an effort to help facilitate online business, U.S. Congress passed the Digital Signature and Electronic Authentication Law (“SEAL”). SEAL provides for legal recognition of electronic signatures sent over the Internet to complete transactions. As such, SEAL expands online business, making it easier for consumers and merchants to conduct business entirely online.

Defending Against the Growing Threat of Identity Theft

Published on: April 21, 2013 | by Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh

Few crimes affect as broad a scope of people as identity theft. With social networks, credit cards, personal information, and contact information so interconnected, perpetrators can trespass into a person’s life by breaking past a single password-protected account. Accordingly, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has created a special division to aggressively prosecute this serious crime. Indeed, the District Attorney’s Office has indicated that it would pursue all cases of identity theft, regardless of how minor. This category of illegal activity includes everything from simply possessing information on another’s identity without their permission to using such information to obtain a credit card or make purchases.

In California, identity theft laws are especially strict because perpetrators can be convicted of felony identity theft regardless of whether the victim suffers financial harm as a result of the identity theft. In fact, signing someone else’s name on an official document may constitute identity theft, depending on the circumstances. Often, identity thieves work as members of larger organizations, which assemble and carry on large networks of identity theft. Someone may be accused of identity theft simply by association with members of such a network. Under California Penal Code § 530.5(a) to maintain a case of identity theft, the district attorney will need to show that a defendant intentionally obtained “personal identifying information” without the consent of the person, to use “for any unlawful purpose.” Defendants may be able to avoid prosecution for identity theft if they can present evidence to show that they obtained the identifying information with the person’s consent.

The most common identity theft cases include illegal credit cards, fake identification cards, stolen social security numbers, purchases with stolen credit cards, and skimming. Skimming involves installing a skimmer to illegal obtain identification and credit card information from card machines in retail stores and gas stations. Identity theft also involves cyber crimes such as phishing or spoofing.

A Call for Laws Against Online Piracy

Published on: April 14, 2013 | by Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh

The illegal downloads of music and movies, and the corresponding financial consequences for music labels and movie production companies, introduced online piracy to the forefront of newsworthy discussions. Today, online piracy has expanded into an online market that allows criminals to profit from stealing intellectual property (such as patents, trademarks, copyrights) from American owners and selling such valuable property online. Such “rogue sites” are usually located outside of America and organizations are able to maintain these sites by circumventing U.S. laws. The rogue sites will sell everything from movies and music, to medicine and automotive parts. In fact, counterfeit baby food comprises a large sector of the online piracy market, endangering the health and wellbeing of American consumers.

In light of this growing threat to American consumers, and their intellectual property rights, there is a call for more stringent online privacy laws to protect against these threats. Illegal piracy costs America $100 billion and thousands of jobs each year. Accordingly, Congress proposed the Stop Online Piracy Act (“SOPA”) to protect American consumers and American intellectual property. SOPA intends to target foreign websites that manage the sale and traffic of counterfeit products.

However, opponents of the bill have spread misinformation over the Internet to block SOPA’s passage. For example, Google openly opposes SOPA. To that effect, Google paid $500 million to settle a case alleging that Google promotes illegal foreign online pharmacies. The case suggested that these pharmacies pose a health risk for American consumers. Google argues that SOPA will allow for online censorship. Proponents of SOPA argue that the law does not aim to censor the Internet. Instead, this law only focuses on online activity that is already illegal. Furthermore, SOPA only covers foreign websites that are specifically involved in infringing activity. The National Association of Manufacturers, International Union of Police Associations, United States Conference of Mayors, National Songwriters Association, and the National Center for Victims of Crime all support SOPA and its overall purpose. Additionally, both the United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations have formed a unique bond to support SOPA.

IMAGiNE Group Faces Counts of Criminal Copyright Infringement

Published on: April 2, 2013 | by Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh

After an investigation by U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations unit, U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright found members of IMAGiNE Group guilty of criminal copyright infringement. The court found IMAGiNE Group, an Internet piracy circle, guilty of perpetuating an effort to release movies available only in movie theaters. A representative of the Motion Picture Association of America testified that IMAGiNE was responsible for the most expansive effort to release pirated films between September 2009 and September 2011.

Judge Wright sentenced Jeremiah B. Perkins, a leading member of IMAGiNE, to prison and ordered him to pay $15,000 in restitution damages. After prison, Perkins will also face three years of supervised release. Perkins was responsible for recording films in theaters and compiling data into complete movie files to share on the Internet. Perkins admitted to renting computers, registering domain names, and opening email and PayPal accounts to help run IMAGiNE’s operation.

The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (“IPR Center”) within the United States Department of Homeland Security has supported the underlying investigation in this case. This center is one of the federal government’s greatest weapons in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. The IPR Center works closely with other agencies within the Department of Justice to facilitate information sharing in an effort to establish and enforce initiatives that deter intellectual property theft. This case was part of the IPR Center’s greater effort to hinder and stop the spread of intellectual property theft. Attorney General Eric Holder instigated these efforts in response to the increasing crimes against intellectual property. Additionally, in light of recent news concerning threats of international cyber attacks, these efforts also go a long way towards protecting American consumers, their health, and their safety. Preventing intellectually property theft also protects the American economy by prohibiting outside parties from profiting on American products and intellectual property. The IPR Center aims to increase intellectual property right protections by implementing stricter criminal and civil liability for property right infringements. Additionally, the IPR Center seeks to organize greater coordination among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Finally, the task force aims to refocus efforts on international property right protections by establishing and strengthening relationships with foreign governments.

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and Copyright Law Implications

Published on: March 26, 2013 | by Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh

On March 19, 2013, the Supreme Court reached a decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. In this case, respondent John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (“Wiley”), a publisher, brought suit against Petitioner Supap Kirtsaeng alleging violation of the Copyright Act, under Title 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-810. Kirstaeng a student in the United States, studying mathematics at Cornell University and the University of Southern California, sold textbooks to help pay for his education and living expenses. Kirtsaeng’s relatives would buy these textbooks in Thailand, where they live, and ship them to Kirtsaeng, who would sell the textbooks in America once he was done using them for his classes. Wiley’s subsidiaries in Thailand manufactured these textbooks.

Wiley contended that by selling foreign manufactured textbooks in America, Kirtsaeng was violating Title 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act. According to 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1), a copyright owner’s exclusive distribution right encompasses the importation of copyrighted work into the United States. Importing copyrighted work into the United States without the consent of the copyright owner constitutes a violation of copyright law. Under copyright law, a copyright owner has the exclusive right to distribute copies of a copyrighted work to the public. However, Kirtsaeng argued that the First Sale Doctrine protects him from any liability because according to the doctrine the copyright owner loses an exclusive interest in copyrighted work after the first sale. The First Sale Doctrine, which is codified under Title 17 U.S.C. § 109, limits copyright owners’ distribution right to the first sale of the copyrighted work. Once the work is transferred, the copyright owner no longer retains an interest in the work.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that copyright law, and specifically the First Sale Doctrine, applies to copyrighted works manufactured abroad. Accordingly, copyright owners, such as the publisher in this case, lose their distribution rights and interests in a foreign manufactured copyrighted work after the first sale of the work. As such, Wiley lost its exclusive distribution right in the textbooks when its subsidiaries first sold the textbooks to Kirtsaeng’s relatives in Thailand. When the relatives then sent the textbooks to Kirtsaeng, who proceeded to resell the textbooks in America, Wiley no longer retained a copyright interest in the textbooks.