Milan Court of First Instance rejects application for 'blank' blocking order

Every woman's dream:
a decoder card to watch
Champions League matches with her beau
Can a blocking injunction concern a target website as well as any possible top-level domains and other sites - without specifying which - associated with it? 

This is the question that the Tribunale di Milano (Milan Court of First Instance) addressed and answered in the NEGATIVE in an interesting interim decision (an ordinanza, RG No 31892/2016 - Mediaset Premium v Orlando and Others) on 27 July 2016, as reported by and commented on very useful online resource Marchi & Brevetti.

Background

In late May 2016 Mediaset Premium - which holds the exclusive broadcasting rights for the Italian territory of the football matches of some of the principal teams of the Serie A and UEFA Champions League - brought an action seeking an interim injunction against a number of major Italian internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to Calcion.

The latter (most recently operating as calcion.at) allowed users of its portal to watch in live streaming Mediaset Premium's broadcasts of relevant matches. Similarly to the Swedish ice hockey saga of C More as addressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) [here], Calcion did so by circumventing Mediaset Premium's paywall.

Mediaset Premium's action had been preceded by several applications for blocking orders with Italian Communication Authority AGCOM. AGCOM had ordered major Italian ISPs to block access to a number of top-level domains of Calcion, including .be, .xyz, .co, .in, and .md.

Just to use the slightly abused reference to a whac-a-mole game, despite Mediaset Premium's enforcement efforts Calcion kept resurrecting under new top-level domains. Hence, Mediaset Premium's action before the Tribunale di Milano, seeking an order to block Calcion, independently from the top-level domain used, and any site associated with it.

The ISPs objected to Mediaset Premium's request, arguing - among other things - that: 
  1. the remedy sought would impose on them a general monitoring obligation that would be contrary to the system envisage by the Ecommerce Directive (Article 15) as implemented into Italian law (Article 17 of D.Lgs. 70/2003); and
  2. the conditions for adopting an interim decision (in particular the urgency of it, ie the periculum in mora) were not present in the case at hand.
As such, the ISPs asked for Mediaset Premium's request to be dismissed or limited to the .at top-level domain of Calcion.

A Kat of the future
The decision

The judge (Pierluigi Perrotti) noted how Mediaset Premium's request - if granted - would result in imposing on ISPs a general monitoring obligation and this would be contrary to the system envisaged by the Ecommerce Directive/D.Lgs. 70/2003.

According to the judge, not even Mediaset Premium's suggestion to indicate relevant sites to ISPs would help, because its request "appears in contrast with some fundamental principles in the procedural system":
  • First, extending the order to any top-level domain and site that in the future would be associated with Calcion and whose content is still unknown would be tantamount to protecting from infringements that have yet to occur [this is true as far as interim proceedings are concerned, but for other types of proceedings the L'Oréal principles should apply].
  • Secondly, the law does not allow a private party (Mediaset Premium) to exert the kind of control that only a judicial authority could exert as regards which sites ISPs should block.
  • Thirdly, not all IP addresses indicated by Mediaset Premium would just concern Calcion. Currently some of those IP addresses host third-party sites that have nothing to do with Calcion. By referring to the CJEU decision in Telekabel [here], the judge recalled that IP protection must be balanced against other fundamental rights, including freedom to conduct a business and freedom of expression/information.
In conclusion, the judge only ordered ISPs to block the .at top-level domain of Calcion.

Overall, the judge acknowledged that "the illicit broadcasting of football matches in live streaming ... is a source of serious and irreparable harm for Mediaset Premium". Yet, this does not mean that Mediaset Premium can seek and obtain a blank blocking order whose content (ie the websites that ISPs should block) it is itself free to decide.

Finally

Small statistical tip for proceedings against ISPs in Italy: go to Rome if you are a rightholder [here, here, and here]; try to move all proceedings to Milan if you are an ISP!
[Originally published on The IPKat on 31 August 2016]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Filmspeler, the right of communication to the public, and unlawful streams: a landmark decision

Image
Yesterday this blog  reported  that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued yet another long-awaited judgment, this being the  decision in  Filmspeler , C-527/15 . At the time of writing, the text of the ruling was not yet available. Now that it is and having had a chance to read it, it seems to me that – despite its highly specific factual background (sale of multimedia players enabling free access to audiovisual works protected by copyright without the consent of the rightholders) - Filmspeler is a MAJOR copyright decision. The reason is essentially two-fold: ·         First, because the Court relaxed the notion of what amounts to an ‘indispensable intervention  [the judgment does not even contain a reference to the intervention being ‘indispensable’]  for the sake of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive . This means – as I also s...
Read more

Italian court finds Google and YouTube liable for failing to remove unlicensed content (but confirms eligibility for safe harbour protection)

Image
Topazio, one of the soap operas produced by Delta TV Is YouTube an active host and, if so, ineligible for the safe harbour protection within Article 14 of the  E-commerce Directive ? As readers with an interest in intermediary liability know, this is not a novel question: indeed, it has been already raised a number of times before national courts. A few weeks ago, in a  decision available on Marchi & Brevetti  (sentenza 7 April 2017 No 1928, RG 38113/2013,  Delta TV v Google and YouTube  – judge rapporteur: Guglielmo Rende), the Tribunale di Torino (Turin Court of First Instance) revisited this issue, and provided an interesting response. Readers might recall that this decision follows other interim rulings commented on this blog  here  and  here . Background Back in 2013 Delta TV, which produces and owns the copyright to a number of South-American soap operas (including audiovisual works for the Italian, Monaco, Swis...
Read more

Brands and online ecommerce platforms: a tainted relationship?

Image
What has happened to online ecommerce platforms? Over the past few months news reports have multiplied – or, perhaps, their underlying issues have acquired greater visibility – that brand owners have been increasingly voicing criticisms against, sued, or discontinued sales on ecommerce sites. In particular, after the  criticisms  made against Alibaba, it seems that Amazon is now making the headlines. Let’s have a quick look at what has happened over the past few months. Court actions First, there have been legal proceedings being brought by trade mark owners, claiming a direct responsibility of Amazon in the sale of counterfeits or invoking a right to prevent sales on such platform. An example of the former is the  lawsuit  filed by Daimler against Amazon in late 2017 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The well-known  German car manufacturer argues that Amazon is directly responsible for the “ offer fo...
Read more