Something for adware users/sponsors to think about - GoFuckYourself.com

TampaToker · 11-01-2006, 09:22 PM

In 2002, Weight Watchers sued competitor DiscreetDrugs.com, which had reportedly used Gator to cause its advertisements to appear when users requested the Weight Watchers web site. Also in 2002, Weight Watchers sued competitor DietWatch.com, which had also reportedly used Gator to cause its advertisements to cover the Weight Watchers site. A premanent injunction was issued by the US District Court, Southern District of New York, enjoining certain DietWatch activities and granting $25,000 of damages.

marketsmart · 11-01-2006, 09:23 PM

yep... its all going to go down real soon....

TampaToker · 11-01-2006, 09:38 PM

http://news.com.com/2100-1024-5180240.html

By Dawn Kawamoto
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: March 26, 2004, 11:54 AM PST

A European court has issued a preliminary injunction against Claria--formerly known as Gator--that prohibits the company's pop-up and pop-under ads from appearing over a German rental car Web site without the agency's permission.

The injunction, announced Friday by plaintiff Hertz Autovermietung, the German division of Hertz, is the latest victory for companies that oppose the unauthorized use of pop-ups on their sites.

The Court of First Instance in Cologne, Germany, ruled March 12 that Claria had violated sections of a German law against unfair competition. Claria and others, such as WhenU, distribute software commonly called adware or spyware that monitors Web-surfing behavior and delivers targeted ads that pop up as windows on the computer screen. The programs sometimes wind up on PCs without their users' knowledge, because they come bundled with other programs, such as file-swapping applications.

"Gator's unsolicited pop-up ads constitute an unwarranted intrusion that disrupts Hertz's ability to do business with online customers," Remy Keijzer, Hertz's general manager in Germany, said in a statement. "We are gratified that the court in Cologne has recognized that Hertz and its online customers are harmed every time these ads appear, often without the full knowledge and consent of individuals who may have inadvertently installed Gator's adware, or spyware, on their home computers."

When users clicked to Hertz's Web site, those that had Claria's adware installed would see pop-ups from Hertz competitors and other businesses, said Richard Broome, a Hertz spokesman.

In making its ruling, the court ordered Claria to immediately halt the placement of software-controlled automatic advertisements on Hertz's Web site without the Hertz's permission. Claria could face a fine of up to $302,325, or six months in jail, for each violation of the order.

Claria declined to comment.

Claria is not alone in facing court challenges. Last December, WhenU was hit with a preliminary injunction that barred it from serving up pop-ups to visitors of 1-800-Contacts' Web site. A U.S. District Court Southern District of New York judge cited trademark violations in handing down the ruling.

That marked a shift from earlier court cases, in which WhenU prevailed. In November, a federal court judge in Michigan dismissed Wells Fargo's lawsuit to block WhenU's pop-ups, noting that those users who received the ads had consented to have the adware installed on their computer, in exchange for free software from WhenU. And a similar situation occurred in September, in a case that pitted U-Haul International against WhenU. A Virginia U.S. District Court judge ruled in WhenU's favor.

L-Pink · 11-01-2006, 10:25 PM

bump, good read

jayeff · 11-01-2006, 10:26 PM

It's not possible to be sure from press reports, but the critical difference in these cases could be that the winning case was fought - at least partly - on the grounds of trademark issues.

The law and justice are not the same thing and judges do not like to be overturned on appeal. Thus I can imagine that cases presented on the basis of issues like copyright violation or restraint of trade are much more likely to be successful than those which might require a court to set precedents.

There is another aspect of all this which may come back to haunt some of those affected by scumware, but who do not act. Namely that companies which do not vigorously defend their trademarks may find themselves in a very weak legal position, if in future they attempt to bring a case against someone for trademark violation.

11-01-2006, 09:22 PM	#1
TampaToker Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Tampa Posts: 5,827	Something for adware users/sponsors to think about In 2002, Weight Watchers sued competitor DiscreetDrugs.com, which had reportedly used Gator to cause its advertisements to appear when users requested the Weight Watchers web site. Also in 2002, Weight Watchers sued competitor DietWatch.com, which had also reportedly used Gator to cause its advertisements to cover the Weight Watchers site. A premanent injunction was issued by the US District Court, Southern District of New York, enjoining certain DietWatch activities and granting $25,000 of damages. __________________ Icq 247-742-205

11-01-2006, 09:38 PM	#3
TampaToker Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Tampa Posts: 5,827	http://news.com.com/2100-1024-5180240.html By Dawn Kawamoto Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: March 26, 2004, 11:54 AM PST A European court has issued a preliminary injunction against Claria--formerly known as Gator--that prohibits the company's pop-up and pop-under ads from appearing over a German rental car Web site without the agency's permission. The injunction, announced Friday by plaintiff Hertz Autovermietung, the German division of Hertz, is the latest victory for companies that oppose the unauthorized use of pop-ups on their sites. The Court of First Instance in Cologne, Germany, ruled March 12 that Claria had violated sections of a German law against unfair competition. Claria and others, such as WhenU, distribute software commonly called adware or spyware that monitors Web-surfing behavior and delivers targeted ads that pop up as windows on the computer screen. The programs sometimes wind up on PCs without their users' knowledge, because they come bundled with other programs, such as file-swapping applications. "Gator's unsolicited pop-up ads constitute an unwarranted intrusion that disrupts Hertz's ability to do business with online customers," Remy Keijzer, Hertz's general manager in Germany, said in a statement. "We are gratified that the court in Cologne has recognized that Hertz and its online customers are harmed every time these ads appear, often without the full knowledge and consent of individuals who may have inadvertently installed Gator's adware, or spyware, on their home computers." When users clicked to Hertz's Web site, those that had Claria's adware installed would see pop-ups from Hertz competitors and other businesses, said Richard Broome, a Hertz spokesman. In making its ruling, the court ordered Claria to immediately halt the placement of software-controlled automatic advertisements on Hertz's Web site without the Hertz's permission. Claria could face a fine of up to $302,325, or six months in jail, for each violation of the order. Claria declined to comment. Claria is not alone in facing court challenges. Last December, WhenU was hit with a preliminary injunction that barred it from serving up pop-ups to visitors of 1-800-Contacts' Web site. A U.S. District Court Southern District of New York judge cited trademark violations in handing down the ruling. That marked a shift from earlier court cases, in which WhenU prevailed. In November, a federal court judge in Michigan dismissed Wells Fargo's lawsuit to block WhenU's pop-ups, noting that those users who received the ads had consented to have the adware installed on their computer, in exchange for free software from WhenU. And a similar situation occurred in September, in a case that pitted U-Haul International against WhenU. A Virginia U.S. District Court judge ruled in WhenU's favor. __________________ Icq 247-742-205

11-01-2006, 09:23 PM	#2
marketsmart HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sunnybrook Institution for the Criminally Insane Posts: 20,419	yep... its all going to go down real soon....

11-01-2006, 10:25 PM	#4
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	bump, good read

11-01-2006, 10:26 PM	#5
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	It's not possible to be sure from press reports, but the critical difference in these cases could be that the winning case was fought - at least partly - on the grounds of trademark issues. The law and justice are not the same thing and judges do not like to be overturned on appeal. Thus I can imagine that cases presented on the basis of issues like copyright violation or restraint of trade are much more likely to be successful than those which might require a court to set precedents. There is another aspect of all this which may come back to haunt some of those affected by scumware, but who do not act. Namely that companies which do not vigorously defend their trademarks may find themselves in a very weak legal position, if in future they attempt to bring a case against someone for trademark violation.