<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Pace Legal  Intellectual Property</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pacelegal.com.au/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:10:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Do mobile phone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy?</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/no-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-in-mobile-phone-users-or-their-phones-whereabouts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/no-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-in-mobile-phone-users-or-their-phones-whereabouts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 03:36:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telecommunications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Android]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cell phone privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Due Process coalition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electronic Communications Privacy Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electronic panoptican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[focault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geo-location based devices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GPS enabled phones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House Judiciary Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[location based privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[location based tracking devices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mobile phone privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opt in consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable expectation of privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=780</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PRIVACY AND LOCATION BASED DEVICES 
Mobile  phones rely on global positioning systems (GPS) and mobile phone towers to hone in on a user&#8217;s location.
The geolocation industry is booming, generating $34 million last year with phenomenal growth predicted in the next five years to reach $4 billion. Whilst geo-location enabled devices such as mobile phones can [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/no-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-in-mobile-phone-users-or-their-phones-whereabouts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Freeway&#8217; Ricky Ross sues for theft of his image</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/freeway-ricky-ross-sues-for-theft-of-his-image/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/freeway-ricky-ross-sues-for-theft-of-his-image/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:14:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dilution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jay-Z]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misappropriation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Ross]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Ross vs. Rick Ross lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ricky "Freeway" Ross]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teflon Don]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William Leonard Roberts II]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=777</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As reported by MiamiNewTimes, former drug dealer and prisoner  LA based Ricky &#8220;Freeway&#8221; Ross, has brought legal action against Miami Rapper Rick Ross (William Leonard Roberts II).
He is  seeking monetary damages of $10 million dollars,  claiming he has been unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff from profiting from his image.
The former drug dealer has joined Shawn Carter [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/freeway-ricky-ross-sues-for-theft-of-his-image/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What if my name is a famous brand?</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/arnoldo-mondadori-editore-v-grazia-solazzi-my-name-is-a-famous-brand/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/arnoldo-mondadori-editore-v-grazia-solazzi-my-name-is-a-famous-brand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domain Name Disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act 1999 US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arnoldo Mondadori Editore v. Grazia Solazzi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bruce Springsteen v Jeff Burgar and Bruce Springsteen Club]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[celebrity names and domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[d/b/a Cupcake Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[famous brand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gordon Sumner p/k/a Sting v Michael Urvan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grazia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Grazia Solazzi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[julia roberts domain name]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LLC v. Mazen Fahmi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Madonna Ciccone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[names and auDRP rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal or business names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pierce Brosnan v. Network Operations Center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R.E. Ted Turner and Ted Turner Film Properties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark and domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William J. Clinton and The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation v. Web of Deception]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What if you personal or business name happens to be the same as a famous brand?
This is what happened to Grazia Solazzi who had UDRP proceedings brought against her by the holder of the trade mark &#8216;GRAZIA&#8217; used by an Italian publishing company in association with a famous Italian Woman&#8217;s Magazine. [ See  Arnoldo Mondadori [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/arnoldo-mondadori-editore-v-grazia-solazzi-my-name-is-a-famous-brand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>HOW TO BYPASS SPAM FILTERS UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/how-to-bypass-spam-filters-under-california-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/how-to-bypass-spam-filters-under-california-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:29:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[email marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[false header information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kleffman v Vonage Holdings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair business practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US CAN-SPAM ACT]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=762</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A California Supreme Court in the case of  Kleffman v Vonage Holdings has held that it is not illegal to send spam from traceable  multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters.
This ruling essentially allows email marketers to create multiple identities, as represented by multiple domain names, to spread out the volume of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/how-to-bypass-spam-filters-under-california-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>YouTube wins $1B lawsuit against Viacom</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/youtube-wins-1b-lawsuit-against-viacom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/youtube-wins-1b-lawsuit-against-viacom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contributory copyright infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corbis Corp v Amazon Inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Millenium Copyright Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA take down notices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liability of online service providers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Perfect 10 Inc v CC Bill LLC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safe harbour provisions DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tiffany Inc v ebay Inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viacom Inc v YouTube Inc & Google Inc]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=758</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Viacom&#8217;s $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube for copyright infringement has been dismissed by a Federal District Court  Judge in New York.
Media titan Viacom Inc. had alleged that YouTube, acquired by Google Inc. in 2006, was engaged in promoting unlicensed videos taken from Viacom&#8217;s cable channels such as Nickleodeon, MTV and Comedy Central.
However a U.S. District [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/youtube-wins-1b-lawsuit-against-viacom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act 2010 (PCNAA)</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/protecting-cyberspace-as-a-national-asset-act-2010-pcnaa/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/protecting-cyberspace-as-a-national-asset-act-2010-pcnaa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[internet censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Kill Switch Bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NCCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PCNAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act 2010]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S706 Telecommunications Act 1934]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senator Joseph Lieberman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Homeland Security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=749</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act 2010 (PCNAA)  (S3480) Act, widely dubbed the &#8216;Internet Kill Switch Bill&#8217;, was introduced into the Senate this month by Senator Joseph Lieberman,  Chairman of the US Homeland Security Committee.
Some of the supporters of the present Bill and analogous legislation proposed last year include Senator Susan Collins [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/protecting-cyberspace-as-a-national-asset-act-2010-pcnaa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian Supreme Court Issues First Ruling on Legality of Keyword Advertising</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/canadian-supreme-court-issues-first-ruling-on-legality-of-keyword-advertising/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/canadian-supreme-court-issues-first-ruling-on-legality-of-keyword-advertising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[British Columbia Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deceptive and misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[false]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google adwords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Career Training Institutions Agency v Vancouver Career College (Burnaby) Inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S7(b) Trade-Marks Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark keyword advertising]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=740</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google adwords program has  given rise to legal controversy, provoking a wave of litigation across several countries. However, until recently no Canadian Court had addressed the legality of an advertiser using a competitor&#8217;s trade mark related keywords in terms of whether this constituted either trade mark infringement or false, deceptive or misleading advertising.
In the case [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/canadian-supreme-court-issues-first-ruling-on-legality-of-keyword-advertising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV &#8211; Attack on comparative advertising</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/l%e2%80%99oreal-sa-v-bellure-nv-attack-on-comparative-advertising/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/l%e2%80%99oreal-sa-v-bellure-nv-attack-on-comparative-advertising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparative advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Comparative Advertising Directive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparison lists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Court of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[L'Oreal SA v Bellure NV [2010] EWCA Civ 535]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smell-a-like perfumes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tort of unfair competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Directive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unjust enrichment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=736</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the advertising world competitors frequently make use of their competitor&#8217;s trademark, which is an entirely legitimate practice. Comparative advertising is encouraged as long as it is not unlawful or deceptive. It can serve to highlight the strengths or aspects of a company&#8217;s products or services relative to those of a competitor. However Trade mark [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/l%e2%80%99oreal-sa-v-bellure-nv-attack-on-comparative-advertising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Warner v Wilkins-Fournier &amp; John Does &#8211; Online Anonymity under Threat in Ontario</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/warner-v-fournier-john-does-online-anonymity-under-threat-in-ontario/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/warner-v-fournier-john-does-online-anonymity-under-threat-in-ontario/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Online defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anonymous free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada (Elections Canada) v National Citizen's Coalition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McIntyre v Ohio Elections Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norwith Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online anonymity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario superior court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R v Cuttell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R v Wilson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable expectation of privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warner v fournier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warner v Wilkins-Fournier]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=716</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case of Warner v Fournier raises important issues related to anonymity and privacy rights on the internet.   It is one of two decisions of the Ontario Court which has  cast a shadow over  the individual&#8217;s enjoyment of  a  “reasonable expectation of privacy”  on the Internet.
The ability of writers, journalists and activists to maintain a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/warner-v-fournier-john-does-online-anonymity-under-threat-in-ontario/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defamation liability for hyperlinks on appeal to Canadian Supreme Court &#8211; Crookes v Newton</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/defamation-liability-for-hyperlinks-on-appeal-to-canadian-supreme-court-crookes-v-newton/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/defamation-liability-for-hyperlinks-on-appeal-to-canadian-supreme-court-crookes-v-newton/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 04:19:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Online defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crookes v Newton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation law Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamatory hyperlinks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jon Newton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liability for hyperlinks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[linking liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[www.p2pnet.net]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Liability of website owners, bloggers, publishers for posting hyperlinks to defamatory content. Supreme Court of Canada appeal of Crookes v Newton]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/defamation-liability-for-hyperlinks-on-appeal-to-canadian-supreme-court-crookes-v-newton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

