21 Mar, 2011
If SEO, Web Hosting Company In Charge Of The Fake Site?
Posted by: admin In: Internet Marketing
Precedence setting or lone case? I’m sure SEO experts who have discovered this case are interested to see what becomes of it. A South Carolina judge has found the SEO Firm, Bright Builders Inc., responsible for damages done by a counterfeit golf club site.
The judge ruled Bright Builders was guilty of trademark infringement and other social contributions, because they provide marketing services and web hosting. The judge ordered the Bright Builders to pay $ 770,050 statutory damages, in which the site owner, Christopher Prince paid $ 28,250.
Do You Agree With the Distinction between Liabilities for Damage?
Cleveland Golf was a company that made the suit and initially targeted only to the Prince. When lawyers in Cleveland has found a brilliant Services Builder, have decided to bring an action against them as well. Argument presented by counsel for Cleveland is Bright Builders is aware of the scam, and service continued.
Christopher Finnerty, one of the lawyers for Cleveland Golf said this of the ruling, “For Internet Intermediaries like SEOs and web hosts, this should be a cautionary warning” he continues, “The jury found that web hosts and SEO’s cannot rely entirely on third parties to police their web sites and provide actual notice of fake sales from the brand owners. Even prior to notification from a third party, Internet intermediaries must be proactive to stop infringing sales when they knew or should have known that these illegal sales were occurring through one of the web sites they host.”
Finnerty also noted how he was the first time a vendor was found guilty of violations without being notified prior to trial. As the first of its kind, it brings the question of whether it is a priority development issue.
I’m not fully wondered the judge concluded Bright Builders guilty of contributory violation of the trademark. Since we have no idea of knowledge, the judge or developed during the case in terms of web hosting, or SEO practices. What surprises me is the difference between the amount of money charged between Prince and manufacturers of Bright. How could they be responsible for much more than the real holder of the site?
Bright Builders has never had a solid approval. If you search the BBB, you can find a grade of “C-”. 26 complaints were filed against them. If you are looking for them on Google, a link up directly to a website called scam.com.
If you really leave the unsettling feeling of SEO experts and businesses. It can get to know the content experts, work. It also provides a discussion of various stakeholders.
If the SEO and hosting services are responsible for the tools they provide fake websites? If they have no knowledge of the area being counterfeit, there is a defense is? Considering how a SEO service needs to know to succeed, it gives an enthusiastic debate.
Peter Zmijewski who is called as Innovator, investor, internet marketing guru and entrepreneur. Peter Zmijewski is also the founder and CEO at KeywordSpy. For more updates don’t go away and stay with us.