3. INTRODUCTION
Introduction p3
The online brand p4
The threat of piracy p6
Managing brand reputation p8
The Internet has radically transformed IP strategies. Today, a
company trading without an impressive online presence is
analogous to a writer without a word processor. According to
the figures released by the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB)
in May 2007, there are now 30.9m people online in the UK
alone (66% of the population). The percentage is even
higher in the US with 69.5% of the population (210.5m)
registered as regular Internet users, according to Internet
World Stats (IWS).
This may seem obvious, but in the early twenty-first century,
the way in which businesses market their brands and
manage their presence on the Internet is continuing to
evolve. Arguably, nowhere else in the commercial world are
cutting-edge legal solutions more relevant. This paper brings
together thoughts and opinions from key figures in the legal
profession to set out expert advice on how to manage and
monitor rapidly-developing digital content.
CONTENT
3
4. In the Web 2.0 generation, many of today’s biggest names
rely almost entirely on the Internet for exposure. YouTube
and Myspace are excellent examples of sites that have
capitalised on the reach of the Internet, while companies
such as Amazon, lastminute and Google are all successful,
revenue-generating businesses that trade solely online.
Where a company’s entire brand survival is indelibly linked
to the Internet, it’s important that this brand be well
constructed – and properly protected.
According to US Internet media company iXL, successful
online brands need to be ‘memorable and distinctive,
relevant to their customers, useful and useable, efficient,
and consistent with their implied service promise.’ But in
order to maintain success online, brands need to be
protected from both a technical and legal perspective.
Without the combination of these, any business reliant on
the Internet could easily be subjected to difficulties.
Certainly, once the creative and technical teams have
designed an online brand commensurate with iXL’s criteria,
legal advice is essential to ensure that a business manages
its online presence for best effect. It’s also advisable to
research what websites and domain names are already in
operation, pre-brand development. Carrying out some
relatively easy and inexpensive domain name checks often
saves time and may even avoid disappointment at a later
stage of a business’s development. But where should a
company start?
The domain name
Google’s technical definition of a domain name – ‘the word
sequences users enter in their address bar of an Internet
navigator to visit a specific website’ – somewhat belies its
core importance. Without a domain name, there is no
online brand. Many international companies know this
much; Nominet, the UK registry for .uk domain names,
currently manages over six million .uk domain names
alone, and while top-level domains such as .com, .org and
.net have never struggled for popularity, there has also been
a marked rise in the number of registrations of so-called
‘country code’ domains, such as .IE (Ireland), .MX (Mexico)
and .BZ (Belize).
In the UK, two of the seven available second-level
domains operated by Nominet are restricted to registered
companies. Prospective registrants are restricted to one
name per applicant, with the name allowed determined by a
set of rules that replicates that used by Companies House.
Nichola Evans, a partner specialising in commercial
litigation with nationwide law firm Ricksons, explains the
system: ‘There are two principal tests for .ltd.uk and plc.uk
second-level domain names. The registrant for a .ltd.uk
domain name must be a limited company properly
incorporated under the Companies Act 1985; likewise, a
public limited company applying for a .plc.uk domain name.
The name chosen must relate to the company name, and, if
available, a company appoints an agent – usually a specialist
web hosting service – to register the domain name.’
Similarly, in the US, the plc.com domain name is limited to
public companies, following rules laid out by ICANN. By
way of contrast, the .co.uk and .com domain is in practice
available to all.
In addition, as of 7 December 2005, .eu domain names
became available. To qualify for .eu registration, applicants
must be able to demonstrate a valid connection with a
country in the European Community. This can be shown in
circumstances where the organisation has a registered
office, central administration or principal place of business
within the EU, or, so far as an individual is concerned, if
that person is a resident within the EU.
More recently, a new domain name for the asia region
(.asia) has been established, with the first registrations due
to start in October 2007. The first ‘sunrise’ period of
registration will be available to legal entities in the DotAsia
community (for example, natural persons, corporations or
companies, government bodies and so on) and to trademark
owners with rights in the territory. Such a domain name
provides corporations with one easy means for blanket
coverage across the entire Pan-Asia and Asia Pacific region.
But if the acquisition of domains of various kinds shows
no sign of abating, what do we know of the best practice
underlying the process?
‘The first step is to check the availability of a domain
name,’ says Evans. ‘How this is determined depends on
4
THE ONLINE BRAND
5. the choice of domain name itself. A useful starting point is
to visit the CORE website, www.corenic.net. CORE, an
international association of registrars, was set up in 1997
and offers members a way of checking the availability of
domains and then, if possible, registering them.’ Evans
explains that the CORE site searches the following
domains: .com, .net, .org, .info, .us, .cn, .tw, .coop, .biz and
.name. As Evans puts it: ‘CORE enables the creation of
domains with the preceding suffixes, as well as their
modification, transfer and renewal.’ Third-party domain
specialists, such as CPA, also provide availability searches
across all gTLDs and ccTLDs. via online extranets.
Should I register generic or country-code domains?
A company needs to decide whether to adopt a top-level
domain or a second-level domain. Albeit that top-level,
generic (i.e. non-country code) top-level domains (known
as gTLDs) have largely proved more popular, there is a
compelling case for country-code domain names (known
as ccTLDs), as David Engel, a specialist in media and
Internet litigation with Addleshaw Goddard, explains:
‘A gTLD may have been taken by legitimate third-party
registrant, in which case a business owner or company
may be confronted simply by the unavailability of its
equivalent gTLD. That being the case, there is a basic
logistical reason for seeking a ccTLD, but marketing
issues might also make a ccTLD more appealing. For
example, a large multinational may have distinct national
franchises. It may wish its online brand to be targeted to
the relevant local market, so in Germany it will be
Globalbrand.de, in Spain Globalbrand.es, and so on. Or a
company may be associated predominantly with one
country, in which case it may be sensible for the branding
as a whole, including the domain name, to focus on the
country of origin.’ ccTLDs are also widely used for specific
language websites.
Ultimately, the decision should be made according to the
company’s wider business strategy, but it’s important for
the corporate marketing and legal teams to work together
from the onset. After all, it makes little sense to invest in
branding, if that impact is going to be diluted by
complications with domain registrations.
GLOSSARY OF COMMON TERMS
gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains): a top-level
domain used (at least in theory) by a particular class
of organisation; for example .com for commercial
organisations.
ccTLDs (country code Top Level Domains): A standard
two-letter abbreviation for the name of a country. It is
used with domain names with locations outside the
US. For example, ".bz" refers to the Belize.
net (.net): The top level domain designated for entities
and computers that represent part of the Internet's
infrastructure. Originally intended for use by Network
Information Centers (NICs), Network Operations
Centers (NOCs), administrative computers (such as a
name server) and network node computers.
org (.org): The top level domain designated for
miscellaneous entities that do not fit under any of the
other top level domains. Typically used for non-profit
organisations.
Registry: A registry is responsible for delegating
Internet addresses such as Internet Protocol (IP)
numbers and domain names, and keeping a record of
those addresses and the information associated with
their delegation.
5
6. Even at the outset, when a domain name is being chosen,
the question of enforcement needs to be considered. It is
vital that rights holders can adequately protect their
brands, whether from cybersquatters, cybersmearing,
piracy or phishing, all of which are increasingly embedded
in the lawyers’ lexicon. As Geoff Steward, IP partner with
law firm Macfarlanes, says: ‘A rights owner may not feel
that the gTLD dispute resolution procedures are adequate,
and may consider that litigation in a chosen ccTLD
jurisdiction will be more effective.’ However, litigation is
not the only solution in cases of piracy, and companies need
to become increasingly clever in the way in which they
select and retain their chosen domain names.
Part of this is driven by the fast-moving nature of the
Internet. Only a few years ago, ‘cybersquatter,’ was a
relatively new term to the law. Now the courts are fully
aware of the dubious methodology of the cybersquatter – the
cynical and opportunistic registrant of a domain name
whose sole intention is to extort money from its rightful
owner for its transfer. In its early form, the cybersquatter
will offer to sell the name at an inflated price, or will
threaten to divert users to a damaging ‘alternative’ site,
either one that is offensive such as a pornographic site or to
sites that compete with the legitimate rights holder. These
days, cybersquatting has become a far more complicated and
challenging threat to domain names; the rise of domain
tasting provides a pertinent example. Exploiting a loophole
in the process of registering a domain name, cybersquatters
are able to ‘sit’ on a domain name for three days to test
traffic to a site before they register it, or release it.
New threats have also emerged, bringing with them new
challenges. The practice of domaining, once considered to be
a form of cyber piracy, is now being recognised as a
legitimate business model that brand owners can themselves
learn from. Domainers are individuals whose profession is
the accumulation and dealing of generic internet domain
names. Although controversially compared to
cybersquatters, domainers claim to differentiate and
legitimise themselves by avoiding trademarked names and
potentially contentious domain names, and refraining from
typosquatting. They consider their conduct in buying,
selling, and developing domain names to be in the same
spirit as real estate investing. Domainers generate revenue
via domain parking, through the resale of domain names
and by developing domain names into fully functioning
websites. The question for brand owners is therefore: if a
domainer has registered a generic name in your field and is
receiving enough hits to justify its up keep or sale, why
haven’t you registered that name to direct traffic to your
own website? By understanding the approach of domainers,
brand owners should be able to assess their own domain
name registration and SEO strategies.
Prevention better than cure
In cases where a cybersquatter has infringed your
trademark rights by registering a domain name in bad
faith (or, simply, without being aware that the domain
name infringes an existing trademark), domestic courts
provide the opportunity for claims to be heard. However,
well-informed brand owners can avoid the expense
necessary in cases of litigation. CPA recommends a four-
pronged approach to fighting online infringement:
investigate, action cease and desist, attempt recovery and, if
all else fails, via a Domain Name Resolution Policy (DRP).
In order to fight infringement, it’s imperative for a
company to track its brands online and record any history of
violation. Monitoring domain name registrations across all
generic Top-level Domains (gTLDs) and available country-
code Top-level Domains (ccTLDs) will allow you to highlight
any registrations that are identical or confusingly similar to
your trademark-protected brands and services, providing
you with the information needed to pursue infringement
action quickly and effectively. Building an in-depth report
about the registrant will also help inform and support your
retrieval strategy. Companies, such as CPA, offer this
service, as it’s important to collect evidence before sending a
C&D, as the infringer could quite simply remove their page.
Issuing a cease and desist letter is important for two
reasons. Firstly, it provides the alleged infringer with the
opportunity to back down without unnecessary work and
expense. If the infringing company has mistakenly
registered the name or is appropriately scared by the threat
6
THE THREAT OF PIRACY
7. of litigation, it will often return the rights on receipt of the
letter. Secondly, if the company registered the name in bad
faith, it will often demand a hefty fee for its return. Such a
response indicates that the registration was made in bad
faith and will support your claim should you be forced to
pursue the infringer to the DRP stage.
The next step is to attempt recovery: ‘Of course, cease and
desist letters don’t always provoke a timely response;
however, before spending the $5,000 involved in the DRP
process, companies should first consider organising an
anonymous recovery instead. In such attempts at recovery,
domain name specialists can ‘anonymously’ approach the
registrant on your behalf and negotiate a fee for the return
of the URL. This route guarantees the return of the domain
name and is particularly useful for companies who don’t yet
have trademark rights in place to support their claims for
ownership in the DRP process.
If all else fails, the Internet Corporation of Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) provides what can often be a
cheap and effective means of redress – and one that is all the
more likely to be successful with a history of infringement
watching and cease and desist attempts in place.
Ultimately, however, the best way to resolve a dispute is
to avoid it in the first place. Those with a proactive
approach to registering domains benefit from the best
chance of protecting their valuable brands from
infringement. However, to do this successfully, brand
owners need to be aware of restrictions on domain name
registrations and to keep on top of rule changes in the
countries where they register their brands. Many domains
experts recommend that companies should buy all domain
names available that legitimately suit their name and
brand(s), at the same time as checking to see if other
businesses have got there first. However, blanket
defensive registration policies are fast becoming outmoded
as a method of protecting all but the core brands of any
company. This is partially due to improvements in the
availability, technology and service behind domain and
digital content monitoring offerings, coupled with a
greater understanding and acceptance of domain names
as legal IP rights.
Nevertheless, it is still wise to protect key brands through
defensive registrations in key territories for your current or
future business operations. However, in those territories
deemed less important for overall brand strategy, it makes
more sense to monitor domain name registrations for
potential infringement. Ultimately, most brand owners will
agree that whatever the cost of their brand protection
strategy, the overall value of the brand and its reputation is
vastly greater.
7
WHICH DRP SHOULD I USE?
ICANN’s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) protects registrations
in .biz, .com, .info, .name, .net and .org top-level domains; however, many territories have
their own DRPs, for example, Nominet’s DRP in the UK (.uk) and EURid’s Alternative
Dispute Resolution Policy (ADR) in Europe (.eu). US domain name dispute resolutions are
overseen by the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), which in turn is governed by the
ICANN’s UDRP. In those territories that do not have a DRP in place, however, companies
have no choice but to pursue the alleged infringer in the courts. For more information,
visit www.cpaglobal.com/domains or email domainnames@cpaglobal.com
8. Once a brand has been created, it’s advisable to implement
watching strategies to deal with attacks on a rights holder.
As Steward says: ‘Making sure that a member of staff does a
google search on the company name and key brand names
every Monday morning could throw up examples of
cybersquatting or IP infringements.’ This process is often
very time consuming and you may not catch everything, so
the alternative would be to deploy the skills of a specialist
trademark watching company or agent. The danger of brand
damage is something to be very aware of, with competitors,
bored teenage hackers and gripe sites all able to damage a
growing brand in a variety of ways. Their activities may sit
uneasily on the borderline of the right to freedom of
expression – enshrined in law in many Western jurisdictions
– but rights holders need not abandon hope. There are ways
in which they can protect their online brands.
Gripe sites
Gripe sites are those which are established with the
express intention of criticising an institution, such as a
company, union, government body or politician. A well-
known example is www.alitaliasucks.com, a site dedicated
to attacking Italy’s national airline for a catalogue of
alleged problems including lost baggage and the absence of
compensation for flight delays and cancellations. Other
‘sucks’ sites have been established, but Alitalia’s bid to fine
and silence the creators of alitaliasucks.com – claiming
violation of statutory and common law trademark laws as
well as the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act –
was rejected by the US courts, which found that the
defendant’s First Amendment right to free speech, allied
with the non-commercial nature of criticism, foiled
Alitalia’s claims.
Rajita Sharma, a partner specialising in IP law with Reed
Smith, says that gripe sites can be difficult to combat: ‘The
law of defamation and trade libel may be used for
derogatory contents of such sites. However, as the various
decisions have shown, actions for trademark infringement
are unlikely to succeed if the judge takes the view that the
use of the marks in the gripe sites is not in the course of
trade in relation to goods or services, or the use does not
take unfair advantage of or is not detrimental to the
character or repute of the trademark.’
Engel agrees: ‘The protection of rights and reputation
online is an increasing issue for many businesses, but
dealing with reputation damage online is not quite as
straightforward as complaining to a newspaper about an
unflattering article, action can and has been taken against
Internet infringers.’
For Sharma, brand owners would be well-advised to think
laterally in order to deal with gripe sites. ‘Companies could
adopt strategies including registering variants of their trade
marks and domain names which contain words such as
‘sucks,’ ‘protest’ and ‘hate.’ They could ensure that their
hosting agreements with ISPs require removal of sites that
infringe their trademarks or contain offensive material.
They could also complain to the domain name registries
such as Nominet and ICANN and seek removal of the
offending domain name.’
If a company does decide to take action and try to get a
website shut down, they will need to compile evidence for
the case. Web-page-change watches can be placed on the
sites so that the brand owner is made aware of any changes
to the page. Sometimes, for example, if a gripe site hears
about potential action, they may temporarily change the
content of the site. This would mean that the evidence is
then no longer available for the courts. However, if the page
is being monitored, the pages are archived and the dates and
times of any changes are recorded.
Organisations such as the International Chamber of
Commerce’s Counterfeiting Intelligence Bureau (CIB) and
the Anti-Counterfeiting Group (ACG) have been set up
expressly to fight the fraudsters. Both provide advice on
brand protection and management, and, indeed, on how to
deal with yet another problem, ‘phishing.’ This occurs
when an e-mail is sent to a user falsely claiming to be
from an established, legitimate enterprise in an attempt to
scam the user into surrendering private information that
will be used for identity theft. Microsoft has been so
bedeviled by the problem that it has launched its ‘Global
Phishing Enforcement Initiative,’ which works in
partnership with law enforcement, governments and
industry to educate consumers, prosecute criminals and
develop technology solutions to address phishing threats.
Meanwhile brand owners are increasingly turning to
third-party experts to assist them with online monitoring
8
MANAGING BRAND REPUTATION
9. of their brand names. With eight million new pages added
to the web every day, it is becoming nigh on impossible for
brand owners to be sure that mentions of their brand are
legally sound. And, once infringement has been found,
content watching services will also provide rights owners
with the necessary background evidence necessary to make
a case. After all, it is all too easy for a cybersquatter to
shut down the website and restart a new one elsewhere.
Brand owners need the evidence to back their claim to stop
such practices.
Cybersmearing
If one option in counter-attacking a gripe site will be an action
for defamation, this remedy could also be deployed in dealing
with another recent phenomenon, ‘cybersmearing’ or
‘cyberstalking’. This occurs when one or more individuals
target a specific business for financial gain, often with the
agenda being to exact revenge against their former employer.
The classic methodology of the cyberstalker is the posting of
defamatory material on Internet message boards and chat
rooms. This can present a serious problem for brands, given
the vast potential audience and the fact that the defamatory
posting can take on an online life of its own. However,
sometimes commencing litigation will not be the best answer,
as Caroline Kean, a libel lawyer with Wiggin LLP, explains:
‘The problem with suing a cybersmearer for libel – assuming
that he or she can be found – is that the defendant may post
accounts of the pre-trial correspondence online. Often they are
motivated by ill-will and will relish being able to do this. This
can end up doing the brand more harm than good. The best
way of combating cybersmearing is to plan ahead – a company
should review its in-house employment policies and do its
utmost to be a good listener so that, hopefully, grudges are not
formed. Ensuring that employment agreements prohibit the
posting of defamatory attacks may also help to create a culture
inimical to potential cybersmearers.’
If a company is sited in a cybersmearing campaign, often the
best policy is to be upfront and honest. We’ve seen two high-
profile cases in recent years with two completely different
outcomes: in the first, the brand owner came across negative
commentary on a blogging site and decided to pursue the case
to court to force the site owners to take down the postings. In
the second case, the brand owner decided to answer the
9
DEFINITIONS
Cybersquatting: The registration of a domain name
that directly copies the identity or trademark of an
established firm, product or public figure.
Cybersmearing: The practice of targeting a specific
firm or individual online with the intent of
committing commercial fraud. Typically conducted
as a form of revenge by disgruntled former
employees or associates.
Cyberstalking: A method of harassing an individual
by email or on social networking sites to obtain
personal information or make inappropriate
requests. Also used as an alternative name for
cybersmearing.
Drop catching: The action of registering a domain
at the point it is deleted at the registry.
Domain tasting: The practice of registering a
domain name, examining traffic or other aspects of
the domain and deleting it within a grace period for
full credit, if it does not meet success criteria.
Typically automated.
Domainer: Someone who:
1. Individually profits from domain names, through
the buying, selling or monetisation of domain
names, and/or
2. Is gainfully employed by an organisation with
income derived from work pertaining to domain
related industry.
Gripe site: A website set up for the specific purpose
of attacking an institution, product or individual.
Phishing: The practice of stinging web users for
sensitive information, often financial, such as credit
card details, by imitating an established corporate
or brand identity.
10. blogger’s comments on the blog site itself: expressing
concern about the service they felt they had received and
offering to resolve it for them and other users.
Unsurprisingly, the second approach was much more
effective from a PR point of view. Many companies have
now put together a blogging policy so that it is clear what
employees should be saying about the company if they
indulge in blogging.
If gripe sites and cybersmearers pose problems that are
arguably better solved by a combination of good business
practice and astute PR than legal remedies, the law comes
into its own in dealing with the distribution of fake goods
via the Internet. This is just as well, given the scale of the
problem: according to the Gieshen Consultancy DOPIP
Security Counterfeit Intelligence Report (January 2006),
more than 3,700 counterfeit and pirated intellectual
property item seizures in 133 countries resulted in a total
loss of USD$1.54bn in 2005 alone. eBay itself has publicly
said that approximately 0.1% of all of its listings were
confirmed cases of fraud (not taking into account
unreported cases).
Is it such a big deal?
Many consumers have an indulgent attitude to rogue
traders, as if they somehow encapsulate a lost spirit of
entrepreneurialism. But according to Anthony Riem,
partner with City law firm, PCB, which specialises in
commercial fraud and asset recovery, it is about time we
woke up to the real cost of such fraud.
‘The demand for fake goods is incredible,’ says Riem,
citing the seizure of goods worth £1.5m at the Wembley
street market last year, ‘but people seem blind to the
implications of allowing counterfeit trade to continue.
Based just upon the value of fake goods seized at Wembley
market, the VAT payable on fake goods sold at the 1,200
permanent markets in the UK would have been enough to
build a school or hospital.’ The problem is compounded by
the Internet, says Riem, not only because of its global
reach but because the law tends to treat online auction
sites as conduits of information, analogous to BT, rather
than the publisher which would, in most cases, be legally
liable for content. Beyond that, says Riem, ‘we should
remember that organised and dangerous criminal
syndicates are behind online counterfeiting. They use
revenue to finance other, more obviously unacceptable
activities such as drug running and terrorism.’
Riem is convinced that the most effective deterrent is
taking away the proceeds of crime. ‘We are fortunate in
that domestic law has wide-ranging powers that enable
10
KEEP INFORMED
You can help protect your domain names by
keeping informed of the latest developments in
the industry. Useful resources include:
ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers: www.icann.org
IANA, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority:
www.iana.org
WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organisation:
www.wipo.int
ICANN web blog: www.lextext.com
ADNDRC, Asian Domain Name Resolution
Centre: www.adndrc.org
Nominet: www.nominet.org.uk
National Arbitration Forum: www.arbforum.com
Further reading:
www.ipreview.com/domains
www.cpaglobal.com/domains
11. 11
action without notice to the criminal. We can obtain third-
party disclosure orders, using civil procedure rules and the
Norwich Pharmacal principle, to compel an ISP to disclose
who is posting material online, which are in turn
accompanied by so-called ‘gagging orders’ to prohibit the
ISP notifying anyone. Similar applications can be made to
banks to freeze assets. The overriding point to be made is
that the English courts cannot abide the idea of London
being used as a centre of international financial crime, and
so are very open to attempts to stop the fraudsters. Our
courts are on the cutting edge of finding ways to combat
online counterfeiting.’
Similarly, in the US, a growing number of legal tools are
available to firms and their clients to help combat
counterfeiting and Internet crime. Temporary restraining
orders (TROs), permanent and temporary injunctions, and
orders of seizure and asset seizures can all help brand
owners to enforce their rights.
A number of other mechanisms exist to deal with the
problem. eBay has implemented the Verified Rights Owner
(VeRO) Program to allow brand owners to report listings
that infringe their intellectual property rights. If a seller
appears to be offering infringing goods for sale, eBay
removes the listing from the site, notifies the seller of the
listing’s removal, refunds all fees associated with the listing
and reviews the seller's account for possible suspension. If
eBay is not sure whether or not an item is infringing, the
company refers the suspect listing to the rights owner for
review. Yahoo! also provides an Auction Abuse form that
enables users to report any listing that abuses its guidelines
and Terms of Service. Brand owners without their own in-
house manpower can also use automated services.
But as Jeremy Phillips, IP consultant at Olswang points
out, legal remedies in the virtual setting of the Internet are
not always that simple. ‘Even if you do find your target,
where can you sue them? The Internet is the proverbial
global village, but courts only exist in real locations –
countries,’ he points out. ‘Old fashioned terrestrial law has
its own web of rules that decide which country’s courts you
can sue in, with separate rules governing arbitration of
domain name disputes by WIPO, Nominet and other
national registrars. And, even if you know who your
e-quarry is and you’ve found somewhere to sue, you need to
assess the likely results of your enforcement action. If your
infringer has no assets to speak of, you can forget about
winning damages and getting back costs.’
Ultimately, it’s all about retaining control of your brand
in the virtual world, and that necessitates a step change in
the way in which users view the Internet. Educating the
public of the cost of online fraud is, according to most
experts, essential. So, too, as Jeremy puts it, ‘intelligence
and effective deterrents.’ In a world which has changed
immeasurably thanks to the advent of the Internet, and
which is set for yet more accelerated evolution, ‘education,
intelligence and effective deterrents’ would seem a sensible
formula for brand owners looking to manage and protect
their digital content. So, too, an ability to think laterally –
and a readiness to utilise legal remedies when necessary.
12. Established in 1969, by attorneys and with over 38 years of legal experience and 40,000 clients, CPA is a leading legal services
provider. Our services are designed to enable clients to increase capacity, manage risk, and reduce costs – without compromising
quality. CPA is a multi-shore company with offices in 7 countries and a network of associates in every Intellectual Property jurisdiction.
For further information about CPA visit www.cpaglobal.com
CPA HEAD OFFICE:
CPA House, 11-15 Seaton Place,
St Helier, Jersey JE1 1BL,
Channel Islands
Tel +44 (0) 1534 888711
Fax +44 (0) 1534 888747
www.cpaglobal.com
REGIONAL OFFICES:
UK: Tel +44 (0) 1784 224 559
Germany: Tel +49 (0) 89 4567850
USA: Tel +1 (703) 739 2234
Australia: Tel +61 (0) 2 9993 3010
TMDS: Tel +44 (0) 20 7549 0660
CPA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS:
UK: Tel +44 (0) 20 7549 0666
France: Tel +33 (0) 1 30 15 66 66
Germany: Tel +49 (0) 89 4567850
USA: Tel +1 (703) 739 2234
Canada: Tel +1 (613) 233 0519
Australia: Tel +61 (0) 2 9993 3000
ABOUT CPA
12
