Trade-marks & the Internet: Protecting Brands on the Internet and in Social Media

Trade-marks & the Internet
Protecting Brands on the Internet
and in Social Media
d i S i l M di

LAW 451 Trade-marks
Faculty of Law, Queen’s University
y , y
Lorraine M. Fleck
March 18, 2010

OUTLINE
I. Domain Names
A. What are they?
B. Types
C. How do you get a domain name?
D.
D Disputes
E. Strategies
F.
F Scams
G. Pending developments

OUTLINE
II. Social Media
A. The problem
B. Case studies
C. Policies of some social media websites
D.
D Strategies

OUTLINE
III.Other Uses of Trade-marks on the
Internet
A. Key word advertising
B. Metatags
C.
C Pop up advertising
IV.Some Internet Resources
V. Questions
V Q ti

DOMAIN NAMES
A. What are they?
y
A more friendly form of a physical
address on the Internet
Like a “vanity number”
E.g. the
E th IP address 69 63 181 11 t k
dd 69.63.181.11 takes
you to…

DOMAIN NAMES
B. Types
yp
1. gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains)
a.
a Unrestricted
.com
.net
net
.org
.info
b. Restricted
.biz

DOMAIN NAMES
B. Types
yp
1. gTLDs
c.
c Sponsored restricted gTLDs a k a sTLDs
a.k.a.
(sponsored Top Level Domains)
.areo .asia .cat
.coop .edu .gov
.int .jobs
j .mil
.mobi .museum .name
.pro .tel .travel

DOMAIN NAMES
B. Types
yp
2. ccTLDs (country code Top Level
Domains)
.ca (Canada) .us (U.S.A.)
.ie (Ireland)
ie .uk (U K )
uk (U.K.)
.fr (France) .jp (Japan)

DOMAIN NAMES
C. How do you g them?
y get
1. First come, first served
2.
2 Do a WHOIS search
a. ca WHOIS: http://whois.cira.ca/public/
3. Use
3 U an accredited registrar
dit d i t

DOMAIN NAMES
y get
4. Satisfy any applicable presence
requirements
a. .ca Canadian Presence Requirements
i.
i Canadian citizen
ii. Permanent resident
iii. Legal representative of (i) or (ii) above
(executor, administrator or other legal
representative but NOT a lawyer acting in
another capacity)

DOMAIN NAMES
y get
requirements
iv.
iv Corporation
v. Trust
vi. Partnership
vii. Association
viii.Trade union

DOMAIN NAMES
y get
requirements
ix.
ix Political party
x. Educational institution
xi. Library, archive or museum
xii. Hospital
xiii. Her Majesty the Queen

DOMAIN NAMES
y get
requirements
xiv.
xiv Indian band
xv. Aboriginal people
xvi.Owner of a registered Canadian TM
xvii.Holder of an official mark
xviii.Government

DOMAIN NAMES
y get
5. Privacy shielding
a.
a Controversial
b. .ca WHOIS policy
i. Individuals
ii. Businesses/organizations

DOMAIN NAMES
y get
5. Privacy shielding
b. .ca WHOIS policy
p y
i. Interested Party Contact Procedure
ii. Request for Disclosure of Registrant
Information
Registered copyright, patent or TM
Registered business or trade name
trade-name
Use of personal information to commit
crime or identity theft
y

DOMAIN NAMES
y get
6. Pick your term
a. ca:
a .ca: 1 – 10 years
b. .com: 1 – 10 years

DOMAIN NAMES
y get
7. Obtaining rights
a. Possession vs. ownership p
b. Can rights be acquired?
i. Yes for services
A trade-mark is deemed to be used in association
with services if it is used or displayed in the
performance or advertising of those services.
f d ti i f th i
Trade-marks Act, subs. 4(2)

DOMAIN NAMES
C. How do you get them?
7. Obtaining rights
ii. It d
ii I depends f wares
d for
A trade-mark is deemed to be used in association with wares if,
at the time of the transfer of the property in or p
p p y possession of the
wares, in the normal course of trade, it is marked on the wares
themselves or on the packages in which they are distributed or it
is in any other manner so associated with the wares that notice
of the association is then given to the person to whom the
property or possession is transferred.
Trade-marks Act, subs 4(1)
Act subs.

DOMAIN NAMES
7. Obtaining rights
ii. It d
ii I depends f wares
d for

A passive website is NOT use with wares
wares.
Pro-C Ltd. v Computer City, Inc.
(2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 577 (Ont. C.A.)

DOMAIN NAMES
8. Trade-marks Office Practice

A trade-mark consisting of or containing one of
d k i i f i i f
.com, .ca, .fr, .uk or .us is unregistrable under Trade-
marks Act para. 12(1)(b) if the trade-mark when
p ( )( )
considered in its totality, as a matter of first
impression in association with the wares and/or
services claimed in the application is clearly
descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive.

DOMAIN NAMES

Where a trade-mark i i totality i registrable and
Wh d k in its li is i bl d
contains one of .com, .ca, .fr., .uk or .us, a disclaimer
of gTLD or ccTLD is required if the gTLD or ccTLD
g q g
when considered in association with the wares
and/or services, forms a portion that is not
independently registrable within the meaning of
Trade-marks Act para. 12(1)(b). [Note: disclaimers
no longer required as of August 15, 2007].

DOMAIN NAMES

If the gTLD or ccTLD i d
h TLD TLD is deceptively misdescriptive
i l i d i i
and forms a significant part of the trade-mark, the
mark in its totality is deceptively misdescriptive and
y p y p
therefore unregistrable having regard under Trade-
marks Act para. 12(1)(b).

Practice Notice: Descriptiveness and Terms Such as .com, .ca, .fr, .uk & .us
CIPO (September 1, 1999)

DOMAIN NAMES
9. What happens when two people have rights in the
same/confusingly similar domain name?
E.g. imperial.com
E g imperial com for margarine vs gasoline
vs.
“First in time”
The lesson: register early!

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
1. Responses to disputes
a. Cease & desist letters
i. May
i M not work k
ii. Puts squatter on notice, which can be good or
bad
Notice
Musical chairs
Purchase offer
iii. Send to Registrar?

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
b. Administrative proceedings

Useful when registrant is privacy shielded or
outside of Canada making enforcement of a
Canada,
judgment difficult/impossible

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
i. Uniform Di
i U if Dispute R
Resolution P li (UDRP)
l i Policy (UDRP):
gTLDs such as .com, .org
ii.
ii CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (CDRP): .ca

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
p p
iii. Procedural overview
Complaint fil d
C l i t filed
Registrant ‘s response
Panel appointed
Decision
iv. Parties
Complainant (must meet Canadian Presence
requirements in CDRP)
Registrant
NOT Registrar

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
1.
1 Responses to disputes
v. Arbitrator
UDRP
– WIPO, National Arbitration Forum (NAF)
– Either 1 panelist or 3 panelists; 3 panelists if
parties disagree on number of panelists
CDRP: Resolution Canada, BC International
Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC)
– Initially 3 panelists, can be reduced to 1
panelist if no response

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
1.
vi. Evidence
Documentation
Affidavit not required

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
vii. F
ii Fees
UDRP: split between the parties
WIPO Fees (USD)
No. of Domain Names 1 Panelist 3 Panelists
1-5 $1500 $4000
6 - 10 $2000 $5000
> 10 To be determined To be determined

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
vii. F
ii Fees
CDRP: bore solely by Complaint
BCICAC Fees (CDN)

No. of Domains 1 Panelist 3 Panelists Initial Fee
1 $1750 + GST $3000 + GST $4000 + GST
2-5 $2250 + GST $4500 + GST $5500 + GST
6 - 10 $2500 + GST $5250 + GST $6250 + GST
> 10 To be determined To be determined To be determined

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
viii. A
iii Appeals
l
Available expressly under UDRP
Not precluded under CDRP
ix. Can also bring simultaneous court
proceedings

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
c. Tests
i.
i UDRP
1. Disputed domain name is identical/ confusingly
similar to a trade-mark or service mark in which the
complainant h rights;
l i t has i ht
2. Registrant has no rights/legitimate interests in
respect of the domain name; AND
3. The domain name has been registered and is
being used in bad faith.

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
c. Tests
i.
i UDRP
Bad faith includes circumstances where the registrant has:
– Registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the
purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the
selling
domain name to the complainant or a competitor of the
complainant for valuable consideration in excess of
registrant’s documented costs directly related to the domain
name;
– Registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of
the trade-mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding
domain name, provided the registrant has engaged in a
pattern of such conduct;

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
c. Tests
i.
i UDRP
Bad faith includes circumstances where the registrant has:
– Registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of
disrupting the business of a competitor; OR
– By using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally
attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its
web site or other on-line location by creating a likelihood of
on line
confusion with the complainant’s trade-mark as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s web
site or location or products or services on same.

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
c. Tests
i.
i UDRP
Defence of registrant’s rights/legitimate interest includes
demonstration of the following:
– Before notice of dispute registrant used/made demonstrable
dispute,
preparations to use the domain name in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods and services;
– Registrant has been commonly known by the domain name
(even if it does not have trade mark or service rights); OR
trade-mark
– Registrant is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to
misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade-mark.

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
c. Tests
ii.
ii CDRP
1. Registrant’s name is “confusingly similar” to a mark
in which the complainant had rights prior to the
date f d
d t of domain name registration and continues t
i i t ti d ti to
have rights;
2. The registrant has no “legitimate interest” in the
domain name; AND
d i
3. The registrant has registered and is using the
domain name in “bad faith”.

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
c. Tests
ii.
ii CDRP
“Mark”: alphanumeric or punctuation elements of unregistered or
CIPO registered trade-mark, certification mark, s. 9(1)(n) marks
and t d
d trade-names.
“Confusingly similar”: a domain name is confusingly similar to a
mark if the domain name so nearly resembles the mark in
appearance, sound or th id
d the ideas suggested b th mark as t b
t d by the k to be
likely mistaken for the mark.

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
c. Tests
ii.
ii CDRP
“Rights”: Complainant has rights in the mark if
– For an unregistered trade-mark, certification mark or trade-
name,
name the mark has been used in Canada by the
complainant, its predecessor in title or a licensor of the
complainant or its predecessor;
– For a registered trade-mark, the mark is registered in CIPO
in the name of the complainant, its predecessor in title or a
complainant
licensor of the complainant or its predecessor in title;
– For a s. 9(1)(n) mark, public notice of the adoption and use
of the trade-mark was given at the request of the
complainant.
l i t

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
c. Tests
ii.
ii CDRP
“Bad faith”: defined exclusively as
1. Registering the domain name primarily for the purpose of
selling, renting, licensing or otherwise transferring the
registration to the complainant or the complainant’s licensor or
licensee of the mark or to a competitor of the complainant in
excess of the registrant’s actual costs in registering th d
f th i t t’ t l t i i t i the domaini
name or acquiring the registration;

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
1.
c. Tests
ii. CDRP
“Bad faith”: defined exclusively as
2. Registering the domain name or acquiring the registration to
prevent the complainant, or the complainant’s licensee or
complainant s
licensor, from registering its mark as a domain name provided
that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;
OR
3. Registering the domain name primarily for disrupting the
business of the complainant, the complainant’s licensor or
licensee, who is a competitor of the registrant.

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
1.
c. Tests
ii. CDRP
For defence of registrant’s rights/legitimate interest, registrant must
show one of the following existed prior to receipt of complaint:
– Domain name was a mark, registrant used mark in good
faith and registrant had rights in the mark;
– Registrant used domain name in Canada in good faith in
association with any wares, services or business and the
domain name was clearly descriptive in Canada in English
or French of (1) character or quality of the wares services or
wares,
business, (2) the conditions of, or the persons employed in,
production of the wares, performance of the services or
operation of the business, or (3) the place of the origin of the
wares,
wares services or business;

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
1.
c. Tests
ii. CDRP
– Registrant used the domain name in Canada in good faith in
association with any wares services or business and the
wares,
domain name was understood in Canada to be the generic
name thereof in any language;
– Registrant used the domain name in Canada in good faith in
association with a non commercial activity including without
non-commercial including,
limitation, criticism, review or news reporting;

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
1.
c. Tests
ii. CDRP
– The domain name comprised the legal name of the
registrant or was a name surname or other reference by
name,
which the registrant was commonly identified;
OR
– The domain name was the geographical name of the
location of the registrant’s non-commercial activity or place
of business.

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
1.
d. Remedies
i. Transfer
ii. Cancellation
iii. CDRP only: up to $5000 CDN in costs of
unwarranted proceeding
t d di

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
2.
2 Purchase
a. Valid option if not strong case
b. Pricing may match or exceed UDRP/CDRP fees
g y

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
3.
3 Courts
Option if domain name ties in with other trade-mark
breach or other causes of action and the judgment is
likely to be enforced

a. Trade-mark
a Trade mark causes of action
i. Imitation (Trade-marks Act s. 19)
ii. Infringement (Trade-marks Act s. 20)
iii. Passing off
iv. Depreciation of goodwill (Trade-marks Act s. 22)

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
4.
4 Common types of disputes
a. Infringement/passing off
i. Cybersquatters: Someone who deliberately acquires a
domain name to prevent others with rights in the
domain name from using it, or to hold the domain for
ransom
ii. Tests same as in other trade-mark disputes
ii T i h d k di
iii. Using a domain name which is similar to a trade-mark
may violate the trade-mark owner’s rights if the domain
name use results in misrepresentation or confusion
lt i i t ti f i
Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. v. Canadian Business Online
(1998), 83 C.P.R. 3d (34)

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
4.
a. Infringement/passing off
iii. Difficult to establish a breach of trade-mark rights
when someone uses a domain name containing a
trade-mark merely as an address, without selling
goods, performing services or operating a business
which would give rise to confusion
Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Merlin International Communications Inc.
(2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 307 (F.C. T.D.).
iv.
iv Conversion
v. A passive website is NOT use with wares
Pro-C Ltd. v Computer City, Inc.
(2001),
(2001) 55 O R (3d) 577 (O t C A )
O.R. (Ont. C.A.)

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
4.
b. Typosquatting
i. Cybersquatting which relies on typographical errors
made by Internet users
ii. Typos in the actual trade-mark e.g. xample.com vs.
example.com
iii. Also the addition of prefixes (e.g. wwwbrand.com) and
suffixes (e.g. brandcom.com)
iv. Adding prefixes/suffixes to a trade-mark does not
mean the domain name is no longer confusingly
similar

DOMAIN NAMES
Most Common Prefixes Used by Cybersquatters
Prefix Rank
www 1
my 2
e 3
i 4
buy 5
shop 6
the 7
new 8
ww 9
go 10

Source: Corporation Service Company (March 2010)

DOMAIN NAMES
Most Common Prefixes Used by Cybersquatters
Prefix Rank
online 1
s 2
usa 3
tv 4
sucks 5
store 6
shop 7
com 8
world 9
e 10

Source: C
S Corporation S i C
ti Service Company (M h 2010)
(March

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
4. Common t
4 C types of disputes
f di t
c. “Sucks”/protest cases
i.
i UDRP: The majority view is that a domain
name consisting of a trade-mark and a
negative term is confusing similar to the
complainant’s mark
l i t’ k
wal-martsucks.com (WIPO D2000-0662)
ii. .ca: No “sucks” cases but freedom o
ca o suc s cases… eedo of
expression ≠ legitimate interest
mckeehomes.ca (CDRP decision No. 00079, 2007)

DOMAIN NAMES
D. Disputes
4. Common types of disputes
d. Famous people cases
i. UDRP: If a personal name is being used for trade or
commerce, the Complaint can establish common law
, p
rights in the name.
juliaroberts.com (WIPO D2000-0210)
madonna.com (WIPO D2000-0847)
( )
– The name must actually be used in trade or
commerce to establish trade-mark rights. Merely
having a famous name is not sufficient.
g
izzyasper.com (WIPO D2001-0540)
megwhitmanforgovernor.com (WIPO D2008-1534)
ii. CDRP: No cases, but likely the same result.

DOMAIN NAMES
E. Best practices against cybersquatting
1.
1 Be first in time

2. Diarize & renew registrations
g

3. Register in multiple gTLDs and ccTLDs as
available/applicable
il bl / li bl
a. .net is the most popular after .com

DOMAIN NAMES
E. Best practices against cybersquatting
4.
4 Register most commonly used terms by
typosquatters
a. Add most common prefixes and suffixes
i. “www” is the most common prefix
ii. “online” is the most common suffix
iii. “sucks” i NOT th most common suffix
iii “ k ” is the t ffi
b. Domain name typo generators

DOMAIN NAMES
F. Scams
1.
1 Solicitations
2. Tasting
3. Kiting
g
4. Front running
5. Slamming
6. Social engineering attacks

DOMAIN NAMES
G. Pending developments
1.
1 Bespoke gTLDs
2. IDNs (Internationalized Domain Names)

SOCIAL MEDIA
A. Why is social media a p
y problem for brands?
1. Unauthorized IP use (including personality rights)
2. Inappropriate trade-mark use e.g. genercide
3. Depreciation of goodwill
4. Harm to reputation
5. No equivalent of UDRP/CDRP
f /C
6. Is it possible to use social media without being anti-
social?

SOCIAL MEDIA
B. Case studies
1. Facebook: Scrabulous

2. Facebook: Coke

3. S
Second Life: Herman Miller
f

4.
4 Twitter: Tony La Russa & twittersquatting

SOCIAL MEDIA
1. Facebook
a. PURLs (personalized URLs)
b. TM registration: no more?
c. Unauthorized IP use is a breach of Facebook
“Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (para
Statement Responsibilities” (para.
5(1)). Facebook can remove such content (para.
5(2)) and terminate the account of repeat IP
infringers “when appropriate” (para. 5(5)).
d. Online IP infringement form

SOCIAL MEDIA
2. Twitter
a. Twittersquatting is prohibited
i. “Using a company or business name, logo, or other
trademark protected materials in a manner that may
mislead or confuse others or be used for financial gain,
may be considered trade-mark infringement. Accounts with
clear INTENT to mislead others will be immediately
suspended, even if there is no trademark infringement,
attempts to mislead others are tantamount to business
impersonation” (Trademark Policy)

SOCIAL MEDIA
2. Twitter
ii. “Impersonation is pretending to be another person or entity
in order to deceive. Impersonation is a violation of the
Twitter Rules and may result in permanent account
suspension” (Impersonation Policy).
iii. “Twitter users are allowed to create parody, commentary
or fan accounts. Accounts with a clear intent to confuse or
mislead may be permanently suspended” (Impersonation
Policy).

SOCIAL MEDIA
2. Twitter
iv. An inactive account without a profile picture and no intent
to mislead typically means no namesquatting or
impersonation. Twitter will not release inactive or squatted
user names except when there is trade-mark infringement.
Attempts to sell, buy or solicit other forms of payment in
exchange for user names violate Twitter’s TOU and may
result in permanent account suspension (Namesquatting
Policy).

SOCIAL MEDIA
2. Twitter
v. Namesquatting and “user name for sale” accounts will be
permanently suspended. Attempts to sell or extort other
forms of payment in exchange for user names will result in
account suspension.
vi. Accounts that are inactive for more than 6 months can be
cancelled without further notice.

SOCIAL MEDIA
2. Twitter
b. Twitter’s test to determine namesquatting
i. The number of accounts created;
ii. Creating accounts for the purpose of preventing others
from using those account names;
g
iii. Creating accounts for the purpose of selling those acounts;
iv. Using feeds of third party content to update and maintain
accounts under the names of those third parties.
c. Verified accounts
d. Complaint mechanism

SOCIAL MEDIA
3. Second Life
a. You will not take any action or upload, post, e-mail
or otherwise transit Content that infringes or violates
any third party rights (Terms of Service, para. 4.1).

SOCIAL MEDIA
4. MySpace
a. Users cannot post what MySpace deems in its sole
discretion as “prohibited content”, which includes
content that violates or attempts to violate trade-
mark rights (Terms & Conditions, para. 8.16).
b. Users cannot upload, embed, post, e-mail, transit or
otherwise make available any material that infringes
any t d
trade-mark (T
k (Terms & Conditions, para. 9)
C diti 9).
Complainants can be sent to MySpace (Terms &
Conditions, para. 9).
p )

SOCIAL MEDIA
D. Brand protection strategies & best practices
p g p
1. Proactive registrations: register trade-marks and
trade-names with each social media site bearing in
mind th t i
i d that inactive accounts may be cancelled per
ti t b ll d
TOU.
2. Register combinations, permutations and
typosquatting variations of trade-marks as user
names.
3. Review and understand each social media site’s
3 R i d d t d h i l di it ’
TOU.
4. Police your marks on social media sites.

SOCIAL MEDIA
D. Brand protection strategies & best practices
p g p
5. Address social media in trade-mark licenses and
employment agreements.
6. If running a social media site, address IP
infringement and consequences in TOU.

OTHER USES
A. Key word advertising
y g
1. A key word is a word (e.g. a trade-mark) used to find
documents on the Internet
2. While there is no Canadian case law on this issues,
using a trade-mark as a key word with services is
arguably use; not likely with wares.
3. Google AdWords
a. Prohibits infringement
b. While has a complaint mechanism, will not
investigate use of trade-marks as keywords in a
number of countries, including Canada
countries Canada.

OTHER USES
B. Metatags
g
1. Words in html code which are invisible to the use but
are visible to search engines so the engines can
decide h th to include
d id whether t i l d a website i search
b it in h
results.
2. Questionable whether there is trade-mark use, since
trade mark
trade-mark use must be visible.
Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Germain
(
(1987)16 C.P.R. (3d) 517
) ( )

OTHER USES
B. Metatags
g
3. Possibly common law passing off
4. The Canadian cases which have dealt with this
issue ruled in plaintiff’s favour without deciding
whether having a trade-mark in a metatag is trade-
mark use.
British Columbia Automobile Association v. Office and Professional Employee’s
International Union, Local 378
(2001), 10 C.P.R. (4th) 423 (B.C. S.C.)

OTHER USES
C. Pop up advertising
p p g
1. Prompted by Internet searches.
2. Automatic, invisible and behind the scenes, like
metatags.
3. No reported Canadian cases.
4.
4 Unlikely a breach of trade mark rights since no
trade-mark rights,
visible trade-mark use.
5. Possible common law passing off claim.
p g

SOME INTERNET RESOURCES
ICANN: www.icann.org.g
Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA):
www.cira.ca.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center: Domain Name
A bit ti d M di ti C t D i N
Dispute Resolution: www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains.
g
Internet Archive: www.archive.org.
Alexa: www.alexa.com.
Domain Tools: www.domaintools.com.

Thank you…Questions?

Lorraine Fleck
Barrister & Solicitor, Trade-mark Agent
Hoffer Adler LLP
lfleck@hofferadler.com

Trade-marks & the Internet: Protecting Brands on the Internet and in Social Media

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (12)

Ähnlich wie Trade-marks & the Internet: Protecting Brands on the Internet and in Social Media

Ähnlich wie Trade-marks & the Internet: Protecting Brands on the Internet and in Social Media (20)

Mehr von lorrainefleck

Mehr von lorrainefleck (6)