|  | ||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Trademark > Weather Reports > Using the Chilling Effects Database for Research: Trademark Infringement Claims as Censorship | 
|
|  Using the Chilling Effects Database for Research: Trademark Infringement Claims as CensorshipMaria Serena Ciaburri, Sanna Kulevska, Liz Woolery, July 09, 2013 Abstract: One of the things we at Chilling Effects are interested in exploring is using our huge database of DMCA take-down notices and cease-and-desist letters for research. With over a million notices in the databases, we have a wealth of information about chilled internet speech over the past 12 years. Both academics and lawyers have used the database for research purposes in the past, and we are hoping to find more uses for the data.  Word cloud generated from trademark infringement notices in the Chilling Effects database
Recently we (the Chilling Effects interns) set out to see what information the Chilling Effects database holds with respect to trademark infringement claims. Specifically, we were interested in finding incidents in which a trademark holder filed a DMCA take-down notice claiming that the recipient was infringing on his or her trademark -- but perhaps there was more to the story. For example, say the trademark holder wasn't really so concerned about trademark infringement, but instead, he or she was concerned about negative opinions expressed toward the brand or service, and the infringement claim was just an easy way to get the content in question removed (at least temporarily). Just a week ago we published a Weather Report about this type of censorship of online speech. That Weather Report discussed a recent entry in the Chilling Effects database dealing with the Church of Scientology's efforts to have a parody site taken down. The incident raises the question of whether the legal system is working as intended, since some might argue that the Church of Scientology's effort at censorship was only thinly masked as a trademark infringement claim, with the Church's real aim being removal of the parody content. Though the outcome of that case and similar cases is up in the air at the moment, there is still plenty of research to be done on this subject. Working with the director of the Digital Media Law Project, Jeff Hermes, we combed the Chilling Effects database for trademark infringement claims, selecting those with motives that seemed to indicate that more than trademark infringement was at issue. Continue reading for more about our method and our findings. Method (How We Did It -- and How You Can Too!) We searched for the frequency of each combination of search terms over the past year, the past 6 months, the past 3 months and the past 30 days prior to June 4, 2013. An overwhelming majority of the search results returned were found using a combination of the words "trademark" and "DMCA."  The search terms "trademark" and "DMCA," when used together, produced the greatest total number of results. Search took place in three formats: First, the terms were placed in the same search box; second, each term was placed in its own search box; and finally, one term was placed in the search box and the other was selected from the drop-down "topic" list. Results shown depict the combination of all three searches. Our specific findings, discussed below offer a preliminary look at the state of trademark infringement claims and the DMCA. Specific Findings The vast majority (61%) of the takedown notices studied here were not sent by market competitors. Only 12% of notices identified were sent by a market competitor. However, 21% of notices were sent by someone who was clearly anti-trademark holder, a fact which was apparent based on the text of the notice. For example, a notice might specify that the trademark holder was concerned about a poor review on an online review site such as ripoffreport.com. In six percent of the notices it was unclear whether the notice was sent by a market competitor. There were very few claims involving metadata, domain names, or URLs. Eighty-five percent of the claims did not involve any of the above. Domain names were the subject of notices 9% of the time and URLs were the subject in 6% of notices. Most of the notices (64%) were submitted to Internet Service Providers via online takedown request functions provided by those ISPs; another 21% were submitted directly from the trademark holder to the recipient/alleged trademark infringer; the remaining 15% did not identify the method of filing.  Conclusions Please keep in mind that searching of the database was not a highly scientific process (though we certainly tried!), due to limitations of the Chilling Effects database search function, and that the presented findings only cover our researched material and not the whole Chilling Effects database. Any questions comments or questions are welcome.
|
|
|
|
Related News