关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

立陶宛

LT001-j

返回

Court of Appeal of Lithuania (Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas), case e2A-26-823/2019, Association LATGA v. SC Lithuanian Radio and Television Centre and others, “Linkomanija case“, [15 January 2019]

The panel of judges of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, having examined the applicant’s Association LATGA, as well as the defendants’ UAB Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos centras, UAB SPLIUS, AB Telia Lietuva, UAB Cgates, UAB Balticum TV, UAB Init and UAB Bitė Lietuva appeals against the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court of 20 November 2017 in the case of Linkomanija, decided that Internet service providers will have to block access to the website linkomanija.net at their own expense.

 

In this case, the Collective Administration Association of Lithuanian and Foreign Authors and Other Copyright Holders LATGA (hereinafter - LATGA) requested the Vilnius Regional Court to prohibit the defendant, Internet service providers, from providing access to the website linkomanija.net to their customers via electronic communication networks. Vilnius Regional Court upheld the claim by ordering the defendants to block their recipients’ access to the website linkomanija.net across the networks operated by the defendants by technical means of their own choice and at the expense of the applicant LATGA. The applicant disagreed with the part of the decision of the Court of First Instance, which obliges the defendants to block their recipients’ access to the website linkomanija.net at the applicant’s expense. The defendants lodged a total of 7 appeals based on fundamental disagreement with the decision of the Court of First Instance.

 

Although the panel of judges of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal agreed in principle with the assessment of the circumstances of the case regarding the application of blocking access to the website linkomanija.net and the arguments substantiating it, it did not agree that the costs incurred by the defendants in blocking access to the website should be reimbursed by the applicant. On 15 January 2019, Chamber of Judges of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal passed the decision upholding the applicant’s LATGA appeal and amended the decision of the Court of First Instance by removing from the operative part of the decision the statement that the ban on access to the website linkomanija.net in the networks managed by the defendants must be implemented at applicant's expense.

 

Commenting on the blocking of access to the relevant website, the Chamber of Judges of the Appellate Court first noted that the measure provided for in Article 78 (1) of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights of the Republic of Lithuania is applicable when: 1) the defendant is an intermediary, i.e. a natural or legal person, including a branch or representative office of a foreign legal person registered in the Republic of Lithuania, providing electronic communications network services consisting of transmission of information provided by third parties via electronic communications networks or provision of access to and / or storage of information provided; 2) the intermediary provides services to third parties; 3) third parties use these services in violation of copyright, related rights or sui generis rights. Furthermore, even if all the above conditions for the blocking of access by the intermediary are established, the European Union law obliges the court hearing the case to verify whether the measure applied for complies with the requirements of the principle of proportionality in a particular case.

 

Having assessed the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter - CJEU), the panel noted that the term "intermediary" covers any person who transmits an infringement of a protected work or other subject matter by a third party online. Given that the internet service provider (hereinafter - ISP) is the entity responsible for any online transmission of the infringement to its customers and to a third party, as it enables such transmission by providing access to the network, the ISP allowing its customers to access protected facilities, which were made publicly available on the Internet by a third party, is an intermediary whose services are used in violation of copyright or related rights. There is no requirement for a contractual relationship between the person infringing the copyright or related rights and the intermediary.

 

The fact that the operation of the website linkomanija.net was based on the peer-to-peer principle of the BitTorrent Protocol Technology was not disputed in the case. In other words, each “client” computer to which a file is downloaded automatically becomes a server where the file is shared with other users. The Chamber noted that the ECJ decision of 14 June 2017 in case No. C-610/15 (Stichting Brein v. Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV) ruled that the term “communication to the public” includes an online file-sharing platform which, through the indexing and search engine of metadata relating to protected works, enables its users to find those works and share them on a peer-to-peer network, submission and administration. Therefore, the Chamber of Judges agreed with the Court of First Instance that, in the case of websites based on the same principle as linkomanija.net, both website administrators and users of the website should be considered infringing third parties within the meaning of Article 78 (1) of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights of the Republic of Lithuania. All of them, together and individually, commit the act of unlawful communication to the public.

 

Within the framework of the case, the finding of the Court of First Instance was upheld stating that the measure sought by the applicant could not be regarded as inappropriate because of its ineffectiveness. The Chamber of Judges noted that, according to the ECJ case law, it is not necessary for the protection of intellectual property to be ensured in absolute terms, i.e. that the proposed measure put an end to the infringement of copyright. It is sufficient that it seriously discourages internet users from committing these infringements and that they be difficult to commit. According to the Chamber of Judges of the Appellate Court, in order for the measure sought to be considered effective, it cannot be required that the possibility of infringement be made more difficult or deprived for the majority of users of the site, because even if a small proportion of users can no longer contribute to copyright infringement, the extent of copyright infringement would be reduced, which would mean that such a measure would at least partially achieve the objective of eliminating and preventing copyright infringement.

 

Although the Chamber upheld the defendants’ argument that bringing an action directly against the operator of linkomanija.net should be considered a priority measure in the light of the principle of proportionality, having regard to the objectives of the legislation providing for the possibility of requiring an intermediary to be barred and the provision set out in the Preamble (59) of the Directive 2001/29/EC, the Chamber concluded that the applicant could not be required to incur excessive, high costs and time-consuming procedures for identifying and claiming the administrator of the infringing website. If the operator of the infringing website does not cooperate, is outside EU jurisdiction or is difficult to identify, the applicant should not be deprived of the right to seek direct redress under Article 78 (1) of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights of the Republic of Lithuania. The Chamber has also ruled that the operators of a website to which it is required to restrict access should not be required to be involved in such third-party litigation. In the Chamber’s view, the administrator of a website who makes his contact details difficult or inaccessible must bear all the risks involved, including the possibility of imposing appropriate injunctions on intermediaries without first hearing the court’s position on the matter. Furthermore, the imposition of a ban on an intermediary by a court decision does not mean that this ban will in the future, in the event of a change in the circumstances which led to the application of the relevant ban, will not be subject to judicial review at the request of interested parties, including the manager of linkomanija.net.

 

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence in the case that he had exhausted his reasonable efforts to direct his claims to the linkomanija.net manager and that attempting to remedy the copyright infringement in this way was likely to be ineffective and costly in terms of time and expense. The Chamber ruled that blocking access to infringing websites was a more effective remedy than appealing to the hosting provider to close the site, and therefore rejected as unfounded the defendants’ argument that the applicant should have brought an action against the Swedish hosting company of linkomanija.net before bringing the action against them.

 

The Chamber rejected the applicant’s argument that the publication of at least some copyrighted works on the disputed website was sufficient for the application of the measure provided for in Article 78 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights of the Republic of Lithuania, since such an assessment would give undue priority to the protection of intellectual property rights without regard to other Charter protected rights. The Chamber stated that in order to recognize that the need to protect the rights of a copyright holder outweighs the right to information and freedom of expression in a particular case, sufficient evidence must be provided to enable the court to rule on the likelihood that copyright the extent of the infringements is large enough to justify blocking. Circumstances such as the nature of the information shared on the dispute website, the principles of operation of the website, the attitude of the operators of that website, etc. may be relevant in this respect. After assessing the full body of evidence in the case, the Chamber upheld the First Instance Court’s finding that linkomanija.net, despite some of its legitimate information, is essentially a pirated website intended for the sharing of infringing information, so that, in assessing the proportionality of the measure sought by the applicant, the need for copyright protection outweighs the right to information of linkomanija.net users. Moreover, most copyrighted works will continue to be freely available to the user through legal distribution sites, i.e. the user's right to information will not be denied at all if the site is blocked.

 

Commenting on the defendants’ argument that the ban applied only to them violates the freedom of fair competition enshrined in Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania by creating unequal conditions of competition with those Internet access service providers who were not involved in the case, the Chamber of Judges of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania noted that in accordance with the principle of dispositivity valid in civil proceedings, the person or persons to whom the claim is filed are selected by the plaintiff. The law does not provide for the possibility for a court to reject a claim filed by an applicant on the sole ground that it is not brought against all persons who could respond to such a claim. The Chamber noted that the applicant is not deprived of the right to make a claim against any other internet access provider at any time. In addition, it is likely that other ISPs will voluntarily take measures to restrict access to the linkomanija.net website following the entry into force of the decision in this case, in order to avoid possible litigation against them and to assess the prospects for such litigation if initiated.

 

The panel of judges, amending the part of the decision under appeal concerning the costs of implementing the blocking measure, stated that internet access providers have an obligation to contribute to the elimination of online infringements, which includes their obligation to bear the proportionate costs involved. The Chamber agreed that passing on the costs of implementing the ban to the right holder could be one of the measures to be considered in order to ensure the proportionality of the ban imposed on the intermediary, but ruled that such a need was not identified in the present case. The Court of First Instance applied an abstract prohibition which did not specify the specific measures to be taken by the defendants to block access to the website linkomanija.net, leaving that choice to the defendants themselves. In this way, defendants have the opportunity to choose the measures that best suit their resources and capabilities, i.e. the defendants’ freedom of establishment is protected from excessive restrictions related to the disproportionate costs of enforcing the ban. At the hearing, the defendants did not show that any of the available measures involve a very high investment requirement; on the contrary, they acknowledged that at least some of the available technologies do not involve high costs and there is therefore no reason to consider that the passing on of the costs of implementing the ban to the applicant in the present case is necessary in order not to deny or severely restrict the defendants' right to conduct business. The Court also found it significant that the applicant in the present case was not a business entity but a non-commercial collective copyright holder administration association and therefore, the costs incurred in enforcing the decision cannot be attributed to natural business costs.