Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd.

Last updated
Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd.
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case nameFacebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd.
DecidedSeptember 10, 2009
Docket nos. 5:08-cv-03468
Citation(s) No. 5:08-cv-03468 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2009)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Jeremy D. Fogel
Keywords
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, copyright infringement, forum non conveniens, trade dress, trademark law, venue

Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. was a federal lawsuit filed on July 18, 2008, by Facebook, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against StudiVZ Ltd., a UK company with its principal place of business in Germany. StudiVZ had launched a website which was alleged to be visually and functionally similar to Facebook's site. Facebook filed a similar lawsuit the same day in the German regional court of Stuttgart and an additional related lawsuit on November 19, 2008, in the German regional court of Cologne. In May 2009 the District Court in California issued an order indicating its view that Germany was the more appropriate forum for the dispute, but withheld issuing a final order on the question until further review of the issues of personal jurisdiction could be addressed. The parties subsequently settled the California case, but continued the litigation in Germany in which the regional court of Cologne held that StudiVZ did not violate any intellectual property rights held by Facebook.

Contents

Facts and procedural history

Facebook, Inc. operates a social networking website, that was founded by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 while he was a student at Harvard University. [1] Since 2008 Facebook has been available in the German language. [2]

In October 2005 StudiVZ launched its website by two students from Berlin, Ehssan Dariani and Dennis Bemmann. StudiVZ is an abbreviation of the German term Studentenverzeichnis or Studienverzeichnis, which means "students' directory". [1] StudiVZ became popular in Germany and subsequently launched several other websites designed to target high school students and students in other European countries. [3]

In 2006 Facebook learned of StudiVZ's website and, believing that the StudiVZ website infringed its proprietary trade dress, Facebook sent a demand letter to StudiVZ. The letter alleged a series of potential claims for infringement of Facebook's intellectual property rights under German law. A similar letter was sent in January 2007. [4] Facebook argued that StudiVZ copied the look, feel, features and services of Facebook.com. [1]

In August 2006 and October 2007 Facebook began negotiations to purchase StudiVZ's websites. [5] After the negotiations failed, Facebook sent demand letters to Holtzbrinck (Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, that acquired StudiVZ in 2007) again alleging infringement of intellectual property rights. [4]

On July 18, 2008, StudiVZ filed a declaratory judgment action against Facebook in the German regional court of Stuttgart in order to declare the claims by Facebook without merit. [6] The same day, Facebook filed a complaint against StudiVZ Ltd., Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GmbH (German entity), Holtzbrinck Networks GmbH (German entity), Holtzbrinck Ventures GmbH (German entity) with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, demanding StudiVZ desist from running a "knock-off" of Facebook's website. [6] and filed motions to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction and on the grounds that Germany was a more convenient forum. [7] [8] Facebook was represented by some of the same attorneys that handled its case with the Winklevoss twins, including Neel Chatterjee and Julio Avalos of the law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (that case became the basis of the academy-award-winning film The Social Network). StudiVZ was represented by Los Angeles-based entertainment law firm Greenberg Glusker.

On October 22, 2008, StudiVZ, [7] Holtzbrinck Networks GmbH and Holtzbrinck Ventures GmbH [8] filed motions to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction and on the grounds that Germany was a more convenient forum.

On November 19, 2008, Facebook filed a second lawsuit for injunctive relief against StudiVZ in the German regional court of Cologne, alleging a series of claims under German law. [9] [10]

On May 4, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order indicating its view that Germany was the more appropriate forum, but deferred making a final decision on the issue until further review of the issues of personal jurisdiction could be addressed. [4]

District Court for the Northern District of California

Facebook's claims

Facebook alleged five different causes of action:

StudiVZ and Holtzbrinck Networks' position

StudiVZ and its owner, Holtzbrinck Networks GmbH, denied the claims [12] and filed motions to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction and on the grounds that Germany was a more convenient forum. [7] [8]

Ruling

On May 4, 2009, the California Court deferred ruling with respect to forum non conveniens until the issue of personal jurisdiction could be fairly presented. [4] The court also held that no choice-of-law determination was required here because neither the Lanham Act nor the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) contain a special venue provision. [4]

Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, courts have broad discretion to decline jurisdiction in favor of a more convenient forum. A party moving to dismiss based on forum non conveniens must show (i) the existence of an adequate alternative forum and (ii) that the balance of private and public interest factors weighs in favor of dismissal. [4] [13]

To determine whether to dismiss an action, the court must determine (i) the degree of deference properly accorded the plaintiff's choice of forum, (ii) whether the alternative forum proposed by the defendants is adequate to adjudicate the parties' dispute and (iii) a balance between the private and public interests implicates in the choice of forum. [4] [13]

Facebook, as the plaintiff, would ordinarily be accorded a great deal of deference in choice of forum. However, because Facebook is a multinational corporation with "a significant business presence in Germany," was currently litigating a similar suit in Germany and the conduct complained of occurred principally in Germany, Facebook's choice of forum was given reduced deference. The court indicated that it believed that Germany was an adequate forum because it would permit adequate litigation of the subject matter in dispute. [4] [13]

Settlement

On September 10, 2009, a settlement was reached resulting in StudiVZ paying an undisclosed sum to Facebook [3] and on September 14, 2009, the California case was dismissed with prejudice per the parties' stipulation. [14]

Decision by the German regional court

Unlike the proceedings before the U.S. District Court, the parties did not settle their lawsuit in Germany. On June 16, 2009, the German regional court of Cologne decided against Facebook regarding the action for injunctive relief (33 O 374/08). [9] [15] The declaratory judgment action before the regional court of Stuttgart therefore became obsolete.

In Germany, Facebook had sued StudiVZ on grounds of unfair competition, trademark infringement and copyright infringement.

Unfair competition

Facebook alleged in its unfair competition charges that StudiVZ is a mere imitation of Facebook and therefore free rides on their good will. This imitation would subsequently lead to consumer confusion as to the source of the StudiVz website. Additionally, an impeded market of Facebook in the German market originated from improper access to Facebook's website by one of the founders of StudiVZ while staying in the United States for an internship. Further, Facebook based the improper access allegation on several security blackouts throughout 2007.

This unfair competition claim was rejected by the court on several grounds.

First, the court held that an imitation leading to confusion as to the source of the websites and the associated free riding on the goodwill of Facebook's website requires a certain degree of public awareness of the website. However, at the time of the introduction of StudiVz to the German market (November 2005) Facebook had not yet established the critical level of awareness in order to justify a claim for improper imitation of a famous website. Rather, until September 2006, Facebook was only designed for North American students and thus did not reach the required degree of public awareness. [9] [15]

Concerning the improper access of Facebook's secret information, the court found the allegations set forth by Facebook improper in order to justify the claim. Neither could Facebook prove any illegal appropriation of the source code, nor was the information accessed by one of the founders of StudiVZ as a registered member of Facebook improperly obtained. Equally, the reliance on general security blackouts was found insufficient. [9] [15]

Finally, the court rejected the unfair competition claim based on impediment of market entry by Facebook. After launching their German version in 2008, Facebook achieved tremendous success. Further, the court held that the alleged copying of several functions of Facebook (like the wall, the group or the poke function) are merely unprotectable ideas not covered by the imitation prohibitions of unfair competition law. [15]

Trademark

As to the trademark claim, the court acknowledged that the Facebook logo serves as a trademark, but was as such not used by the defendant.

The design of a website can assume trademark quality as well, but only if the design is to a high degree remarkable. The court held that such a distinctiveness was not achieved by Facebook, where the logo is clearly located apart from the design, which is in its remaining parts mostly simple and functional. [15]

The court later decided to address the question of copyright infringement. According to German law, only copying of the source code would constitute copyright infringement. But that there are similarities in the design, structure and function of the two networks could equally derive from a conscious imitation of the other website without directly accessing and copying of the source code of Facebook. The reference to Facebook's web appearance could have simply happened by using the publicly available HTML texts and stylesheets when programming StudiVZ. Even if the programmer of StudiVZ was given the concrete task to create a website in the style of Facebook, this does not constitute copyright infringement according to German Copyright law, see §69a German Copyright Act [16] Mere similarities between the two websites are not enough to demonstrate with sufficient probability a copying of the source code. [15]

Breach of contract claim

Finally the court rejected a contract claim on the grounds that defendant was never a registered member of Facebook. [15]

Related Research Articles

A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute. The declaratory judgment is generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States, and is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the remedies granted by courts of equity. A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or more other remedies.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

Forum non conveniens (FNC) is a mostly common law legal doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and transfers the case to such a forum. A change of venue might be ordered, for example, to transfer a case to a jurisdiction within which an accident or incident underlying the litigation occurred and where all the witnesses reside.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forum selection clause</span>

A forum selection clause in a contract with a conflict of laws element allows the parties to agree that any disputes relating to that contract will be resolved in a specific forum. They usually operate in conjunction with a choice of law clause which determines the proper law of the relevant contract.

isoHunt Torrent index site closed 2013

isoHunt was an online torrent files index and repository, where visitors could browse, search, download or upload torrents of various digital content of mostly entertainment nature. The website was taken down in October 2013 as a result of a legal action from the MPAA; by the end of October 2013 however, two sites with content presumably mirrored from isohunt.com were reported in media. One of them – isohunt.to – became a de facto replacement of the original site. It is not associated in any way with the old staff or owners of the site, and is to be understood as a separate continuation.

StudiVZ, SchülerVZ and MeinVZ was a social networking platform for students and based in Berlin, Germany. The name is an abbreviation of the German expression Studentenverzeichnis, which means students' directory.

The Kano trovafloxacin trial litigation arose out of a clinical trial conducted by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer in 1996 in Kano, Nigeria, during an epidemic of meningococcal meningitis. To test its new antibiotic, trovafloxacin (Trovan), Pfizer gave 100 children trovafloxacin, while another 100 received the gold-standard anti-meningitis treatment, ceftriaxone, a cephalosporin antibiotic. Pfizer gave the children a substantially reduced dose of the ceftriaxone relative to that described on the US FDA-approved prescribing information. The allegation is that this was done to skew the test in favor of its own drug. Pfizer claimed that the dose used was sufficient even though a clinical trial performed by Médecins Sans Frontières recommends a dose of 50–100 mg/kg.

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered the lower court's application of its power of forum non conveniens, a common law legal doctrine whereby courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties.

Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases refers to a growing set of judicial precedents in American courts where personal jurisdiction has been asserted upon defendants based solely on their Internet activities. Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions, and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court.

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Serv. Ass'n is a court case in which the pornography magazine Perfect 10 filed a complaint against Visa and MasterCard for copyright infringement and trademark infringement.

<i>Richardson v Schwarzenegger</i>

Richardson v Schwarzenegger was an internet defamation case heard in the English High Court of Justice, on 29 October 2004. Claimant Anna Richardson, a British television presenter, claimed to have been libelled in the 2 October 2003 issue of the US publication Los Angeles Times, which was available in print and online in the UK, as a result of statements made by the gubernatorial campaign manager of Arnold Schwarzenegger, an Austrian-American actor and politician.

<i>Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.</i> Lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States

Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. is a lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Power Ventures Inc., a third-party platform, collected user information from Facebook and displayed it on their own website. Facebook claimed violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. According to Facebook, Power Ventures Inc. made copies of Facebook's website during the process of extracting user information. Facebook argued that this process causes both direct and indirect copyright infringement. In addition, Facebook alleged this process constitutes a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Finally, Facebook also asserted claims of both state and federal trademark infringement, as well as a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<i>Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.</i> Case in American intellectual property law

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, is a case in American intellectual property law involving personal jurisdiction in the context of internet contacts.

Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. was one of a series of lawsuits between technology companies Motorola Mobility and Apple Inc. In the year before Apple and Samsung began suing each other on most continents, and while Apple and High Tech Computer Corp. (HTC) were already embroiled in a patent fight, Motorola Mobility and Apple started a period of intense patent litigation. The Motorola-Apple patent imbroglio commenced with claims and cross-claims between the companies for patent infringement, and encompassed multiple venues in multiple countries as each party sought friendly forums for litigating its respective claims; the fight also included administrative law rulings as well as United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and European Commission involvement. In April 2012, the controversy centered on whether a FRAND license to a components manufacturer carries over to an equipment manufacturer incorporating the component into equipment, an issue not addressed in the Supreme Court's default analysis using the exhaustion doctrine in Quanta v. LG Electronics. In June 2012, appellate judge Richard Posner dismissed the U.S. case with prejudice and the parties appealed the decision a month later.

The SAS Institute, creators of the SAS System filed a lawsuit against World Programming Limited, creators of World Programming System (WPS) in November 2009. The dispute was whether World Programming had infringed copyrights on SAS Institute Products and Manuals, and whether World Programming used SAS Learning Edition to reverse engineer SAS system in violation with its term of usage.

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</i>

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

<i>CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc.</i> American legal proceeding

CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, was a United States legal case in which CollegeSource sued AcademyOne for a number of claims including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

<i>Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc.</i>

Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328, was a personal jurisdiction case in which the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that operator of website, for which server was located in California, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Missouri under "commission of a tortious act" provision of Missouri's long-arm statute, §506.500 RSMo. The case was brought before the court by Marits, Inc. alleging that the Cybergold's use of mark for advertising internet site was a trademark infringement. Cybergold moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the court found that the operational nature of the Internet based service provided a connection for Cybergold to be sued in Missouri.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd., No. 08-03468 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2008) (Complaint).
  2. ↑ Sekan Toto, Facebook Recruits Street Troops To Grow in Germany , Inside Tech Crunch.com (September 25, 2008).
  3. 1 2 Justin Smith, Facebook Settles Suit Against StudiVZ, but Germans Already Moving to Facebook Anyway , Inside Facebook.com (Sep. 10, 2009).
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd., No. 08-03468, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40941 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2009) (Order deferring ruling on motions to dismiss).
  5. ↑ Caroline McCarthy, "Report: Facebook tried to buy StudiVZ", Inside News.cnet.com (August 8, 2008)
  6. 1 2 "Facebook challenges German rival", Inside News.bbc.co.uk (July 21, 2008)
  7. 1 2 3 Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd., No. 08-03468 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008) (Motion to dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for Forum Non Conveniens filed by Studivz, Ltd.).
  8. 1 2 3 Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd., No. 08-03468 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008) (Motion to dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for Forum Non Conveniens filed by Holtzbrinck Networks GmbH, Holtzbrinck Ventures GmbH).
  9. 1 2 3 4 Sekan Toto, Facebook Loses Lawsuit Against German Clone StudiVZ, Gets Criticized For Sloppy Preparation , Inside Tech Crunch.com (June 16, 2009).
  10. ↑ Facebook takes 'knockoff' German site StudiVZ to court Archived 2010-01-10 at the Wayback Machine , Inside The Local.de (April 29, 2009).
  11. ↑ Aharon Etengoff, Facebook sues German competitor , Inside Theinquirer.net (Jul. 21, 2008).
  12. ↑ Helen Chernikoff, German site sued by Facebook says claims without merit , Inside Reuters.com (Jul. 20, 2008).
  13. 1 2 3 Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd , Inside casesofinterest.com.
  14. ↑ Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd., No. 08-03468 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2009) (Stipulation and order for dismissal with prejudice).
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd., No. 33 O 374/08 (Judgment) (June 6, 2009)". Archived from the original on April 14, 2010. Retrieved March 10, 2010.
  16. ↑ "§ 69a UrhG Gegenstand des Schutzes - dejure.org". dejure.org. Retrieved 21 December 2016.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.