General involvement in app production doesn’t defeat 230

Free Kick Master LLC v. Apple Inc., 2015 WL 6123058, No.
15-cv-03403 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015)
Free Kick Master has a registration for “Free Kick Master,”
and sued Apple, Google, and Samsung, alleging that they all offered downloads
of an infringing Free Kick Master app or game. 
Though framed as direct infringement, the trademark claims had to be understood
as contributory infringement claims.  For
services, contributory liability can attach to those who continue to supply a
service to one known to be using it in an infringing manner, so long as the
service provider is also shown to have ‘[d]irect control and monitoring of the
instrumentality used by a third party to infringe….” Under this standard,
Free Kick Master failed to allege facts showing Amazon/Google continued to
supply their services to third-party app developers engaged in infringement after
learning of that infringement; no facts even alleged that Amazon/Google knew
that the apps and games were infringing until the lawsuit was filed.
Also, the state law claims, including the state law
trademark infringement claim, were barred by §230 of the CDA because of the 9th
Circuit’s rule that the IP exclusion in §230 means federal IP.  Free Kick Master argued that it had alleged
that Google/Apple had contributed to the alleged illegality by promising to
promote the apps, approving the apps, ensuring that the apps worked as outlined
and didn’t impair users’ devices, testing the apps for compatibility, and
supplementing them with code.  But having
content guidelines and rules, enforcing those rules, and providing technical
assistance to developers was insufficient to lose §230 immunity.  Without an allegation that Amazon/Google were
responsible for the infringing
content—choosing the names, assisting or encouraging the infringing use of Free
Kick Master’s mark, etc.—there was no claim. 
Samsung got out of the trademark infringement claim under
the same theories, with even more attenuated connection to the third-party
websites on which the allegedly infringing downloads compatible with its
devices were offered.  The state law
claims were dismissed as to Samsung because they were basically the same as the
Lanham Act claims; Samsung apparently didn’t argue §230, perhaps because it’s
not even providing relevant services.

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s