1
Chapter 17
Digital Law and E-Commerce
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
17.1 Cybersquatting
Ernest & Julio Gallo Winery (Gallo) wins. Gallo registered the trademark “Ernest & Julio Gallo” in 1964
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The company spent over $500 million
promoting its brand name and sold more than 4 billion bottles of wine. Its name has taken on a secondary
meaning as a famous trademark name. Spider Webs, which registered the domain name
ernestandjuliogallo.com, and its owners Steve, Pierce, and Fred Thumann, argue that they did not act with
a “bad faith intent to profit,” which is required to find a violation of the federal Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). Spider Webs has no intellectual property rights or trademark in the
17.2 Internet Service Provider
No, GTE Corporation (GTE) is not liable for damages to the plaintiff football players. GTE is an Internet
service provider (ISP) that provides high-speed connections and storage on its server so that content of
websites can be accessed. A part of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides: “No
provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any
information provided by another information content provider.” Just as the telephone company is not
17.3 Domain Name
The Coca-Cola Company wins. Francis would be described as a cybersquatter, that is, someone who
registers domain names of famous companies or persons who they are not connected with. The U.S.
Congress enacted the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), a federal law specifically
2
person’s name, the holder’s offer to sell or transfer the name, whether the holder has acquired multiple
Internet domain names of famous companies and persons, and other factors. Here, the registered domain
17.4 E-Mail Contract
West Coast Steel Company wins. Contracts can be legally negotiated and completed by e-mail as long as
they meet the requirements necessary to form a traditional contract. This includes capacity, lawful object,
agreement, and consideration. The element of capacity is met because both parties are businesses, and the
Steel Company argues that an e-mail contract, which is electronic, is not in writing according to the
Statute of Frauds and is therefore unenforceable. The U.S. Congress has enacted the Electronic Signatures
17.5 Electronic Signature
signatures meet the signature requirement of the Statute of Frauds. The E-SIGN Act recognizes electronic
signatures (e-signatures) and gives an e-signature the same force and effect as a pen-inscribed signature
17.6 License
licensee. Here iSoftware, Inc. is the licensor and Tiffany is the e-licensee. The Uniform Computer
Information Transactions Act (UCITA) is a model act that establishes a uniform and comprehensive set of
3
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
17.7 Ethics Case
has two fundamental requirements: (1) the name must be famous and (2) the domain name must have
been registered in bad faith. In this case, the first element is met because the names “Macy’s,” “Exxon,”
and “General Motors” are famous trademarked names. The second issue is whether the famous names
have been registered in bad faith. The registered domain names used the companies’ trademarked names.
to draw attention to its grievances against the target companies.
17.8 Ethics Case
Apricot.com wins. Bates licensed Apricot.com’s software “Match” for a period of five years with a
other software programs and data that the user may have stored on his computer. Here, there is no
evidence of such damage. Therefore, Apricot’s disabling of its software on Bates’ computer is lawful.
Bates breached the contract. If he had good reason not to pay for the software program (e.g., it did not