Articles Posted in E-commerce

Published on: | by

Through globalization, outsourcing, and growing industry abroad international commerce has come to the forefront of business practices. Especially in the realm of electronic commerce, or e-commerce, where entire transactions take place online, international commerce is a major factor. Accordingly, legal considerations arise out of international business conduct, which includes questions of applicable law, jurisdictional concerns, and appropriate service of process in the case of a legal dispute.

One such applicable body of law is the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”). The CISG was enacted in 1980 when international business and international e-commerce were a much less prominent mode of commerce. However, a growing international business community has placed the CISG in the forefront of fundamental business legislation in the international community. The CISG is intended to establish a “uniform and fair regime” for international contracts in order to provide for certainty in international commerce.

Additionally, the Hague Conference on Private International Law is an international organization that combines different legal traditions and practices to form a comprehensive legal framework to govern international legal transactions. The various Hague Conference Conventions have established frameworks for the practice of law across international borders. For example, the 1965 Hague Convention on Service Abroad has installed a system of service for legal documents that is not only more reliable, but certainly much more efficient and simple. The United States Department of State provides the applicable guidelines for various methods of service of legal documents abroad. By offering a more streamlined process, international legislation allows parties to conduct business more efficiently and regulates international legal disputes, which in turn minimizes costs and saves time for clients.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

As online consumerism expands alongside ever-growing government deficits, legislatures look towards online transactions as a potential source of taxation revenue. Currently, there is no universal taxation on the Internet. Based on Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, a 1992 Supreme Court decision, online merchants that do not have a physical presence in a state are not required to collect sales tax from consumers for online transactions.

However, there is a rising movement towards imposing sales taxes on online transactions. For instance, the House Judiciary Committee is considering the Marketplace Equity Act of 2011, which would serve this exact purpose. Internet sales taxes could raise $20 billion for states. The National Retail Federation supports this law, explaining that the Act will help put an end to “showrooming” where customers review products in physical stores, but complete purchases online in order to save money by avoiding sales taxes.

Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, has commented that although an Internet sales tax may be due, online merchants face an undue hardship because collecting taxes from different states and jurisdictions is highly complicated and involves complex calculations to abide by the various tax rates. The National Retail Federation agrees that taxation on the Internet is largely “a collection issue.”

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The list of generic top-level domains (gTLD’s), such as “.com” or “.edu,” has changed very little over the history of the internet, until recently. Between January and May of 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) accepted applications for new gTLD’s. It reportedly received more than two thousand applications, many of which may go live by the start of 2013, after review by ICANN. Trademark owners should be aware of their rights, in the event that someone else attempts to register an infringing gTLD.

ICANN recognizes several different types of top-level domains, and the most well-known, and widely available, TLD’s are the generic TLD’s. Seven original gTLD’s became available in the 1980’s, .com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org. Three of these, .com, .net, and .org, have been available to registrants with no restrictions. ICANN added new gTLD’s over the years, such as .biz, .info, and the recently-added .xxx, making a current total of twenty-two. In June 2011, ICANN took an unprecedented step of allowing applications for new gTLD’s beginning in 2012. The application process requires filing a complicated packet of materials and a non-refundable fee of $185,000 payable to ICANN.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The internet and social media have allowed people, businesses, and brands to communicate and interact more than ever before. As much benefit as that brings, it also brings significant risks to the reputation of both people and brands. The internet allows people to post using a pseudonym, or to appropriate someone else’s name. The appropriated name could be that of a prominent individual or (“public figure”), but online “persona hijacking” can affect anyone.

Generally, the motive of most persona hijacking is profit or fraud. Someone may appropriate the name or likeness of a famous person to profit from public goodwill towards that person. It could include setting up social media accounts, e-mail addresses, or websites using the person’s name, or some other effort to spoof the person’s identity. For a person who is not famous, persona hijacking may serve a function much like identity theft, using that person’s credentials to obtain, for example, fraudulent credit.

In some cases, the purpose of persona hijacking is to submit a person’s name to criticism or parody. The line between legitimate commentary and unlawful harassment, however, can be very fine, and parody can easily become a “false light” portrayal of a person. Use of a person’s name or likeness for the purpose of criticism or parody may, in certain limited circumstances, be protected by the First Amendment. In other cases, it may constitute unlawful infringement of a person’s trademark rights or right of publicity.

A person who uses their own name in commerce, usually someone prominent in business or entertainment, may obtain trademark protection. This generally prohibits others from using the name commercially. For most people, the right of publicity prohibits use of their name or likeness without their consent, especially for commercial purposes. The Fair Use doctrine, however, may allow use of a name or likeness for legitimate criticism or parody, where it is clear that the work is not originating from the person being appropriated.

You can take several steps to protect yourself from online persona hijacking:

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Copyright law, which protects a person’s rights to his or her own creative works, dates back nearly to the invention of the printing press. It protects a creator’s ownership of a creative work and the rights to use the work publicly. It also gives a creator remedies against anyone who infringes those rights. Where trademark law protects brand names, logos, and other “marks” representing a product or service, copyright law protects creative works like novels, songs, photographs, designs, or software. Computer technology, particularly the internet, has made copyright infringement quite easy and created new challenges for copyright owners.

Nearly any original creative work has copyright protection. Online, this can include graphics and designs, text, photo or video files, music, or code. A website created for a business most likely contains content subject to the protections of U.S. copyright laws. Technically speaking, copyright protection applies the moment a work is created in a physical form, which includes creation as a digital file. While copyright laws apply to a work upon its creation, enforcement is very difficult unless the creator takes additional steps to document the work’s creation and ownership with the government.

The U.S. Copyright Office allows copyright owners to formally register their works in a central location. Registration may deter others from infringing on a work, and it allows a copyright owner to effectively defend a work through the litigation process. Evidence of registration with the Copyright Office serves as prima facie evidence of ownership in a legal dispute. Most importantly, registering a work in a timely manner allows the owner to claim statutory damages in an infringement suit. Courts can award damages of up to $150,000 per act of intentional infringement, but only if the copyright owner follows the registration procedures.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Advertising that a product is “made in America” or “made in the U.S.A.” is a very effective sales strategy, according to recent polls. An Adweek Media/Harris Poll conducted in July 2010 found substantial support for domestic-made products, with sixty-one percent of nationwide respondents saying they would be more likely to purchase a product labelled “made in the U.S.A.” Only three percent said they would be less likely to buy something. In California and the rest of the West Coast, about fifty-seven percent said they would be more likely to buy “Made in the U.S.A.” products.

Because labelling or claiming a product as “Made in the U.S.A.” makes a statement about the product’s origin or quality, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) views it as a form of advertising. It is therefore subject to deceptive trade practice regulations. Labelling can be express, meaning an actual label appears on the product, or implied, meaning that the product’s marketing states or strongly implies U.S. origin. The rules apply not only to product labels, but to any marketing activity, such as print, television, or internet advertising.

The FTC’s rules can be complex and cumbersome, but every California business that wants to use the label needs to understand their responsibilities. Businesses that make unqualified claims that a product is “made in the U.S.A.” could face legal consequences if their claim is false or unsupportable. The federal Lanham Act allows anyone damaged by a false or misleading claim of a product’s origin, such as a competitor, to sue for damages.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Companies cannot survive, let alone thrive, in today’s business environment without an Internet presence. Businesses and brands maintain websites and social media profiles in order to advertise and market products and services, but also to interact with customers. Social media in particular has given businesses an unprecedented ability to reach out to customers and to respond to their concerns. With this ability, however, comes the risk that unauthorized third parties will register an Internet domain with a company’s or brand’s name, or a deceptively similar name, and create a misleading or even harmful website. The practice of registering an Internet domain using the name of a trademarked brand is often known as “cyber-squatting.” Businesses and people who are the victim of cyber-squatting have remedies through a process established by several organizations that oversee and regulate Internet domain names.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a private nonprofit corporation based in Los Angeles, California. It represents a collaboration between government agencies and several private organizations. ICANN has final responsibility for assignment of domain names, IP addresses, and other identifying information used by machines on the Internet.

In order to effectively handle disputes or complaints relating to domain name registrations, ICANN enacted the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Anyone who owns or registers a domain name with a “.com,” “.org,” or “.net” top-level domain has agreed to abide by the terms of the UDRP by virtue of their agreement with their domain name registrar.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

When hackers breached the e-commerce firm Zappos in January, they may have compromised the personal information of as many as 24 million users. Legislatures in several states, including California, have responded to attacks such as this one by passing laws enhancing cybersecurity investigation and enforcement, and increasing requirements for disclosure of cyberattacks. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has also issued new guidelines for businesses and individuals under attack. The key issue to consider, in light of these new laws and regulations, is how much disclosure is not enough, and how much is too much.

The SEC is recommending disclosure of cyberattacks to an unprecedented degree. A new set of guidelines issued in October 2011 advises publicly-traded companies to disclose details of cybersecurity breaches as part of the quarterly 10-K report. Companies should disclose any and all cyberattacks, regardless of whether they caused a loss. The SEC even encourages companies to disclose “cyberrisks,” even in the absence of a breach. This potentially benefits investors, the SEC says, by providing comprehensive information about both actual and potential losses due to hacking and other cyberattacks. At the same time, extensive disclosure could put companies at greater risk by exposing weaknesses to hackers. Companies must carefully consider how much, or how little, to disclose. Too much disclosure could make them vulnerable to attack. Too little disclosure could make them vulnerable to lawsuits by investors.

State laws regarding cybersecurity disclosures are typically not as stringent as the SEC’s guidelines. California passed the first such law a decade ago. That law applies to any person or business that owns or licenses computer data containing a California resident’s “personal information,” such as social security number, home address, driver’s license number, and so forth. In the event of a breach that would reasonably lead to an unauthorized person obtaining the personal information, an owner or licensor of personal data must notify the person whose personal information may have been breached.

Forty-six states have followed California’s lead and passed similar laws. California has actually fallen behind some states that have passed laws with stricter disclosure requirements. A new law that took effect on January 1, 2012, requires an individual or business to notify the state attorney general of a cybersecurity breach if the breach affects more than five hundred California residents. The notice must include specific details of the type and size of the breach, and a toll-free number to allow users to contact credit agencies.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Last year, the California State Legislature made various efforts to regulate commercial transactions on the Internet. These efforts provide interesting questions and concerns regarding practical and constitutional limits on a state’s capability to legislate or regulate transactions on the world-wide-web (i.e., the Internet) due to its intrinsic interstate character.

One important consideration is the Dormant Commerce Clause, which stems from Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the federal Constitution. This doctrine implies that Congress only has the power to regulate interstate commerce and that the states do not have such power. Its application to the regulation of activities on the Internet is not quite developed and includes a series of judicially-created analyses. So far, the United States Supreme Court (which is the nation’s highest court) has not issued any definitive rulings. In addition, we do not have authoritative decisions by federal courts regarding the capability of the states to control online privacy and data security, tax online sales, or regulate online gambling.

As mentioned in this article, the legislators in this state passed or proposed laws that would develop our state’s regulatory power over transactions on the Internet which relate to the following topics: (i) privacy and data security; (ii) taxation of retail sales over the Internet; and (ii) online gambling.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Mall owners are harnessing digital technology to stem an erosion in their tenant base by online retailing and to promote shopper attendance to their centers.

Hammerson which is a leading European real estate company in London, United Kingdom (http://www.hammerson.com) plans to use a system which tracks shoppers to its malls by using signals from their mobile phones. Australia’s Westfield Group, Ltd. (http://www.westfield.com) plans to set up a virtual mall. Also, the Simon Property Group, Inc. (SPG) of Indianapolis (http://www.simon.com) and Paris-based Unibail-Rodamco SE (UL), are seeking to encourage consumers to add new smartphone applications.