United States: The Evolving Law on Application of U.S. Trademark Laws Beyond U.S. Borders

Last Updated: June 2 2006
Article by Rami S. Yanni and Robert Zelnick

Globalized commerce is apparently here to stay. The advertising, buying and selling of goods and services recognizes no borders. As a result, enforcing territorially based trademark rights has become ever more challenging. Remote trademark owners who peacefully coexisted in a time before the internet and increasing globalism are now bumping heads. The internet also has made it easier for unscrupulous operators to deceive consumers and divert customers from established businesses by misappropriating trademarks on websites and in domain names.

U.S. federal courts have been willing to help American businesses halt trademark infringements that reaches outside the United States. This is particularly true for e-business, via the internet, and the trend toward enforcement seems to be in favor of the trademark owner. This article discusses this trend as well as the extraterritorial enforcement of trademark rights by U.S. courts under the Lanham Act. It also offers suggestions for protecting valuable trademark rights worldwide.

Enforcing trademarks extraterritorially through litigation in U.S. federal courts involves three considerations: whether the court will accept subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute under the Lanham Act; whether the court will find that it has personal jurisdiction over the alleged infringers (particularly when they are non-U.S. nationals); and whether a judgment entered by the court will be enforceable. The latter topic, enforcement, while an important consideration, is beyond the scope of this article.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Extraterritorial Application of the Lanham Act

The foundation for extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act by U.S. courts was first addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1952 in Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., Inc.1 In Steele the Court held that a U.S. district court had jurisdiction to award relief under the Lanham Act for infringement of a U.S. firm’s U.S. trademarks, when the infringer was a U.S. citizen operating in Mexico. The plaintiff owned a U.S. trademark registration for BULOVA for watches. The defendant registered the identical mark in Mexico. He then assembled watches in Mexico from parts obtained from the United States, applied the Bulova trademark and sold the watches exclusively in Mexico. While the defendant did not sell watches in the United States, U.S. Bulova dealers received complaints from consumers about defective watches they had purchased in Mexico and brought back across the border.

The Court first noted the Lanham Act was designed to regulate "all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress," a scope which subsequent courts have read expansively.2 The Court based its ruling on three factors: the defendant’s conduct had an effect on U.S. commerce; the defendant was a U.S. citizen, and international law does not bar the United States from governing the conduct of its own citizens abroad; and because the plaintiff had succeeded in canceling the defendant’s Mexican trademark registration by the time the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, there was no conflict with any trademark right granted under Mexican law.

Most federal appeal courts have had an opportunity to apply and interpret Steele in the more than 50 years since it was decided.3 The influential U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Second and Ninth Circuits initially established quite different standards for jurisdiction under Steele. The Second Circuit’s test was fairly strict, while the Ninth Circuit’s approach was more flexible. Differences remain, but the Second Circuit has eased its requirements for extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act over the years and now tends to mirror the national trend toward expansive enforcement of the Lanham Act.

Second Circuit

The seminal Second Circuit case on extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act is Vanity Fair Mills Inc. v. T. Eaton Co. Ltd.4 The Vanity Fair court evolved the factors considered in Steele into a three-part test: whether the defendant was a U.S. citizen; whether a conflict existed between the defendant’s trademark rights under foreign law and the plaintiff’s rights under U.S. law; and whether the defendant’s conduct had a substantial effect on U.S. commerce.5 The court determined that at least two of the three factors were necessary for extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act.

In Vanity Fair a U.S. company with a U.S. trademark registration tried to enjoin a Canadian company with a Canadian registration for the same mark from selling goods under the mark either in the United States or Canada. Applying its test, the Second Circuit found that a U.S. court could not enjoin the defendant’s activities in Canada, even if the mark in question was applied to the goods in the United States before being shipped to Canada for sale. The fact that the defendant had U.S. employees did not change the result because the court found these employees did not exercise control over the defendant. In a later case, C-Cure Chem. Co. v. Secure Adhesives Corp., the Second Circuit also refused to enjoin a Canadian company’s Canadian sales under a Canadian trademark even though the defendant purchased ingredients in the United States.6 The C-Cure court said, "The clear import of Vanity Fair Mills is that the Lanham Act should not be applied to a foreign citizen allegedly committing infringing acts in his or her home country."7

The Second Circuit has subsequently, softened its stance considerably. For example, courts in the Second Circuit have been willing to allow "constructive citizenship" to satisfy the first factor if the defendant resides in the United States and can influence the infringing behavior.8 Courts have also been willing to overlook pending trademark applications in jurisdictions outside the United States.9 In addition, courts have softened the "substantial effects" requirement to include indirect effects, such as diversion of sales,10 including from foreign licensees,11 damage to plaintiff’s reputation12 and instances when the defendant’s activity is only "supported by or related to" U.S. commerce.13 All these changes are apparent in Calvin Klein Indus., Inc. v. BFK Hong Kong, Ltd., a case in which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily enjoined the defendants from selling infringing goods in the United States and "such other markets as [plaintiff] may demonstrate that it has established its presence, through either direct sales or licensees."14 In fact, some commentators now question whether the Calvin Klein decision has unduly expanded the potential reach of the Lanham Act.15

In Sterling Drug Inc. v. Bayer AG,16 the Second Circuit emphasized the Vanity Fair test should not be applied mechanically because to do so could lead the court to "fail to preserve the Lanham Act’s goals of protecting American consumers against confusion, and protecting holders of American trademarks against misappropriation of their marks."17 In Sterling Drug the defendant, a German company, held the right to use the trademark BAYER in many countries but not (through a quirk of history) in the United States (at least not for consumer-oriented pharmaceuticals). Sterling, which held the U.S. trademark registration for BAYER, sued Bayer AG after efforts at co-existence in the United States failed. The district court entered an injunction prohibiting Bayer AG from conducting certain activities in the United States. The court also enjoined use of the mark in conjunction with certain extraterritorial activities (such as press announcements) in locations where Bayer AG had the legal right to use the mark so as to prevent the effects of such activities from spilling over into the U.S. market. On appeal Bayer AG asked the Second Circuit to limit the injunction to actions within the United States. While chiding the lower court for failing to make the appropriate findings under the Vanity Fair test before entering the injunction, nonetheless the court declined to forbid all extraterritorial effects of the injunction and noted that "the stringent Vanity Fair test is … unnecessarily demanding when the plaintiff seeks the more modest goal of limiting foreign uses that reach the United States." 18

Most recently, courts in the Second Circuit have also addressed the issue of trademark use on the internet. For instance, in Toys "R" Us v. Abir, the district court preliminarily enjoined a U.S. citizen from using the domain "toysareus.com" although the defendant claimed he planned to use it strictly for overseas commerce.19 However, the court may have been influenced by the defendant’s attempt to sell the domain name to the plaintiff for a large profit.

Ninth Circuit

The seminal Ninth Circuit case to consider extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act is Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co.20 The court drew on its holding in an antitrust case, Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America,21 to devise a test for applying the Lanham Act outside of the United States. Timberlane set out a "jurisdictional rule of reason" to govern the reach of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Wells Fargo court noted the Sherman Act used jurisdictional language as "sweeping" in scope as that of the Lanham Act, thus making the analysis similar. The court held that the "extraterritorial coverage of the Lanham Act should be gauged not so much by the locus of the activity sought to be reached … as by the nature of its effect on that commerce which Congress may regulate."22 Further, the court held that while the foreign activities must have "some effect on United States foreign commerce," the effect need not be "substantial," as the Vanity Fair court had held.

The court considered several additional factors: the degree of conflict with non-U.S. law or policy; the nationality or allegiance of the parties and the locations or principal places of business of corporations; the extent to which enforcement by either state could be expected to achieve compliance; the relative significance of effects on the United States as compared to those elsewhere; the extent to which there was explicit intent to harm or affect American commerce; the foreseeability of such effect; and the relative importance to the violations charged of conduct within the United States as compared with conduct abroad. According to the Ninth Circuit, "A court evaluating these factors should identify the potential degree of conflict if American authority is asserted."23

The Timberlane test was applied in Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Co., Inc.,24 a case in which one U.S. company sued another for placing the plaintiff’s U.S. trademark on goods that were produced in Mexico and then shipped to the Far East via a foreign-trade zone in the United States. The court found that it had extraterritorial jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction resulting from the goods moving through the foreign-trade zone. In Ocean Garden the Timberlane test was further distilled into three criteria: there must be some effect on American foreign commerce; the effect must be sufficiently great to present a cognizable injury to plaintiffs under the Lanham Act; and the interest of and links to American foreign commerce must be sufficiently strong in relation to the interests of other nations. The seven Timberlane factors are considered part of the third prong of the test. Not surprisingly, the Ninth Circuit test has been described as the most flexible of all the circuits.25

The Fourth Circuit and Domain Name Disputes

In 1999 the Lanham Act was amended to add the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).26 Under the ACPA, U.S. trademark owners have a cause of action against persons who register a domain name containing their trademark in bad faith. Of special interest in the international context is the ACPA’s in rem provision, which allows plaintiffs who cannot locate or obtain jurisdiction over a domain name’s owner to bring a suit against the name itself wherever the name’s registrar or registry is located. A registrar is a business that registers and holds domain names on behalf of their owners; a registry maintains the directory of all registered domain names for a particular domain (such as .com or .net). The registries for the .com, .net and .org domains are located in the Eastern District of Virginia. As a result, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit have been the de facto courts of exclusive resort for in rem ACPA complaints against non-U.S.-based registrants using these domains.

Because a successful in rem suit would order the registry or registrar to transfer the domain and because the registry (and often the registrar) is located within the Eastern District of Virginia, the Fourth Circuit has not treated these cases as involving an extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act.27 Thus, the Fourth Circuit has not felt obliged to defer to judgments made abroad regarding the domain name in question, which it might if it were applying a Vanity Fair-type test. For example, in Hawes v. Network Solutions, Inc., a U.S. citizen sued his registrar and a French business for "reverse domain hijacking" under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2) (passed as part of the ACPA),28 which allows a domain name owner whose domain name has been taken by another under a claim of trademark infringement to sue for its return. The Fourth Circuit found it irrelevant to the question of jurisdiction under the ACPA that a French court had ordered the domain name lorealcomplaints.com to be transferred to L’Oreal.29

Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet

Even if a U.S. court decides that it has subject matter jurisdiction over foreign trademark infringement, it must still establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant. U.S. federal courts first addressed this issue with respect to websites in the context of out-of-state (versus out-of-country) defendants. Assuming the defendant is not a resident in the district in which the case is brought, the defendant must have some minimum level of contacts with the forum state, and the case must arise out of those contacts. Further, the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant must be "reasonable." Some courts discuss the "minimum contacts" element in terms of "purposeful availment"—did the defendant purposely avail himself of some benefit of the forum state and thus make himself subject to the forum’s rules? Generally, just having a website that can be viewed within a forum is not sufficient; there must be "something more" to justify jurisdiction.30

A frequently cited case, Zippo Manuf. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com,31 devised a "sliding scale" of website characteristics for purposes of determining whether personal jurisdiction over a website’s owner is appropriate. At one end of the scale are passive websites and at the other are those that conduct business online. If a website conducts business with residents of the forum, such as by selling goods or subscriptions, it is likely a court will find it has personal jurisdiction over the site’s owner. Somewhere in the middle are websites that are interactive—visitors may communicate with the owner through the site, for instance—but perhaps do not conduct business in the sense of selling products. While not all circuits have adopted the Zippo test, it is a frequently used method of evaluation.

It may not take much for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction as a result of internet-based activities. For example, in one case a plaintiff sued a Washington state resident in a California federal district court for defamation on the defendant’s website.32 The court found the 11 e-mails the defendant sent into

California to promote her website (i.e., 11 percent of the total e-mails sent) were sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant had directed activity into California and to subject her to personal jurisdiction.

In the international context in Quokka Sports Inc. v. Cup Int’l Ltd,33 another California court found that operating a website from New Zealand was sufficient to justify imposing personal jurisdiction over the website’s New Zealand owners. The court noted that at least half the traffic the site received was from the United States; many of the advertisers on the site were American firms, and the owners were selling products through the site. The Quokka court also noted that where a defendant based outside the United States is not subject to the general jurisdiction of any U.S. federal district court, a court may aggregate all the defendant’s contacts with the United States, regardless of which states they took place in, to determine if personal jurisdiction is appropriate.34

A Word of Warning: Extraterritorial Enforcement of Trademark Rights Can Cut Both Ways

Given the increasing clash of trademarks globally, U.S. trademark owners may not always be on the offense. U.S. businesses may be exposed to trademark litigation abroad in connection with their global and even U.S.-based activities. Conducting business on the internet increases that risk because it decreases the control businesses have over where their trademarks are seen and, thus, "used" in commerce. In one recent case, a German court issued an injunction against a U.S. company on the basis of an infringing domain name that contained the plaintiff’s German trademark.35 The German court expressly stated it had jurisdiction because currently there are no international agreements on jurisdiction for internet matters. Other German court decisions have held that a website does not create a trademark violation in Germany if the only connection to Germany is that the website can be viewed there.36 However, an injunction can still be granted if a website is targeted to German customers: for instance, if the site is in German, accepts German credit cards or is advertised in Germany. Courts in other countries have also been willing to reach U.S. firms operating websites that are available in their country. For example, while not a trademark matter, Yahoo! Inc. was successfully sued before a French court because its auction site offered Nazi artifacts, a violation of French law. Among other things, the court noted the site was available in French.

There are a number of steps that companies can take to try to limit exposure from their internet presence in many jurisdictions. For instance, geo-filtering techniques (usually based on the user’s IP address) may be used to prevent certain nationals from viewing a website. Also, websites can be expressly targeted to specific national markets, thus allowing the company to argue against any violation elsewhere. Website disclaimers designating the intended reach of the website may further reduce the risk of being sued abroad.

Conclusion: An International Trademark Strategy Is the Best Offense and Defense

Although the foregoing precautions may decrease the likelihood of a U.S. firm being subjected to foreign jurisdiction outside of the United States, it remains important to have an international trademark strategy to secure the right to use a mark in other countries.

While U.S. courts have been willing to help U.S. trademark owners protect their rights against extraterritorial infringement, the decision to exercise jurisdiction is often made on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis. In addition there is always a risk that a business may find itself a defendant in trademark litigation abroad. Therefore, businesses should put themselves in the most advantageous position possible to both enforce their own trademarks and minimize the potential for third-party infringement allegations on an international level. Doing so requires a carefully crafted trademark strategy in which appropriate international trademark protection and domain name registrations are pursued in tandem with U.S. rights and not as an afterthought. U.S.-based trademark owners should also carefully craft overseas license agreements to ensure a business will retain rights to its marks overseas if the relationship sours.37

Establishing, implementing and enforcing such an international trademark strategy, together with accompanying measures such as website disclaimers and trademark notices, is a "best practice" for any company. Such an approach helps to effectively protect trademark owners’ property rights in global markets and safeguard against costly international litigation while preserving all options for future market expansion.

Footnotes

1. Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., Inc., 344 U.S. 280 (1952).

2. Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. T. Eaton Co. Ltd., 234 F.2d. 633, 641 (2d Cir. 1956); see also Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Co., Inc., 953 F.2d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 1991).

3. See, e.g., Cecil McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005) (Lanham Act can be used to reach foreign activities of foreign defendants only if they have "substantial effects" on U.S. commerce); Scanvec Amiable, Ltd. v. Chang, 80 Fed. Appx. 171, 180-81 (3d Cir. 2003); Nintendo of Am., Ltd., v. Aeropower Co., 34 F.3d 246, 250-51 (4th Cir. 1994) (adopting Vanity Fair test but requiring only "significant" rather than "substantial" effect on U.S. commerce); Am. Rice, Inc. v. Ark. Rice Growers Coop. Ass’n., 701 F.2d 408, 414 (5th Cir. 1983); Liberty Toy Co. v. Fred Silber Co., No. 97-3177, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 14866 (6th Cir. 1998) (remanding to the district court to apply the Vanity Fair test); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 427-429 (9th Cir. 1977); Int’l. Café, S.A.L. v. Hard Rock Café Int’l. (U.S.A.), Inc., 252 F.3d 1274, 178-79 (11th Cir. 2001) (applying Vanity Fair).

4. Vanity Fair, 234 F.2d. 633.

5. Id. at 634.

6. C-Cure Chem. Co., Inc. v. Secure Adhesives Corp., 571 F. Supp. 808 (W.D.N.Y. 1983).

7. Id. at 821.

8. See, e.g., Calvin Klein Indus., Inc. v. BFK Hong Kong, Ltd., 714 F. Supp. 78, 80 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (treating one defendant as a U.S. citizen for purposes of the test because he resided in New York and was the "controlling force" behind the other defendant, a New York corporation); A.V. By Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 126 F. Supp. 2d 328, 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (same).

9. See, e.g., Les Ballets Trockadero de Monte Carlo, Inc. v. Trevino, 945 F. Supp. 563, 567-68 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

10. See, e.g., Les Ballets Trockadero, 945 F. Supp. at 567 (citing American Rice, 701 F.2d at 414-15).

11. Playboy Enters. v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc., 511 F. Supp. 486, 495 (S.D.N.Y. 1981), aff’d, 687 F.2d 563 (1982) (holding that by placing information about its magazine online and accepting subscriptions from U.S. citizens, defendant Italian magazine had violated an injunction prohibiting it from using the mark on the magazine in America).

12. Calvin Klein, 714 F. Supp. at 79; Warnaco, Inc. v. VF Corp., 844 F. Supp. 940, 951-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

13. Les Ballets Trockadero, 945 F. Supp. at 567 (finding that foreign defendants’ actions of forming a U.S. corporation, hiring dancers, ordering costumes and sets, and reserving rehearsal space in preparation for a tour of Japan helped create a substantial effect on U.S. commerce sufficient to support jurisdiction).

14. Calvin Klein, 714 F. Supp. at 80.

15. Robert Butts, Note: Trademark Law: Interpreting The Congressional Intent Of The Extraterritorial Application Of The Lanham Trademark Act, 8 Fla. J. Int’l L. 447 (Fall 1993).

16. Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Bayer AG, 14 F.3d 733 (2d. Cir. 1994).

17. Id. at 746.

18. Other Second Circuit cases have also entered injunctions having extraterritorial effects. See, e.g., Calvin Klein and Les Ballets Trockadero, supra notes 8-9.

19. Toys "R" Us v. Abir, No. 97-civ-8673, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22431 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

20. Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1977).

21. Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of Am., 749 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Cecil McBee, 417 F.3d at 111 (citing the antitrust case Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Cal., 509 U.S. 764 (1993)).

22. Wells Fargo, 556 F.2d at 428.

23. Id. at 428-29.

24. Ocean Garden, 953 F.2d 500.

25. 9 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 863, 882 (1999).

26. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

27. See, e.g., Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL.org, 259 F. Supp. 2d 449, 456 (E.D. Va. 2003).

28. Hawes v. Network Sol., Inc., 337 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2003).

29. Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003) (reversing the lower court in a reverse domain hijacking case because it applied Spanish law instead of U.S. law).

30. Nicosia v. De Rooy, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

31. Zippo Manuf. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997).

32. Nicosia, 72 F. Supp. 2d 109.

33. Quokka Sports, Inc. v. Cup Int’l. Ltd, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

34. Id., 1110-11; see also Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(k).

35. KG, NJW 1997, 3321 - Concert Concept.

36. OLG Karlsruhe, MMR 2002, 814.

37. For an example of extraterritorial Lanham Act litigation arising from a licensing agreement gone bad, see V’Soske, Inc. v. Vsoske.com, Case No. 00-cv-6099, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5025 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions