Even if platforms comply, they still risk facing massive new litigation
Engine, 2020 - Engine is a non-profit technology policy, research, and advocacy organization that bridges the gap between policymakers and startups. Comment submitted to US Patent and Trademark Office, “Re: Comments of Engine Advocacy in Response to Secondary Trademark Infringement Liability in the E-Commerce Setting, Docket No. PTO-T-2020-0035,” 12/28,
//DH
Trademarks are pervasive across the globe. There are over 2.6 million active trademarks in the U.S. alone.15 It would be impossible for a new e-commerce platform to learn, monitor, and identify alleged infringement of that many marks in the millions of products that are (or could be) posted on these sites. Volume is not the only problem—it is complex to identify specific instances of trademark infringement. Trademark owners are much better suited to know what might confuse their consumers and know what products they have authorized.16 Without trademark owners identifying infringement in the first instance, platforms will both over- and under-police, unintentionally blocking legitimate content and letting some infringement slip through the cracks.17
Likewise, technology and filters are not a solution, as these are both very expensive and inherently limited.18 As we have previously explained in the copyright context:
Technology and filters have many inherent limitations which make them incapable of fully addressing online infringement. Filtering technology is imperfect, with often high false positive rates. It is categorically incapable of answering fact-specific questions of infringement, like fair use, licensing, and the exclusion of unprotectable ideas. But these filters are also out of reach for most startups. The most sophisticated tools are so expensive that the development costs are orders of magnitude above what a startup could afford. Off-the-shelf tools, which cannot screen much content on a multimedia platform, are also too expensive for early-stage companies to license and maintain. All filters are limited in the type of content they screen. And for many types of content, there are no filters. Finally, technology is easily circumvented. Users intent on uploading infringing content can easily modify files to avoid the filters.19
Indeed, the measures certain platforms deploy to try and prevent trademark infringement are not perfect, and counterfeiters already find ways around these measures. Even for platforms spending the most, and deploying the most sophisticated technology, it is impossible to keep trademark infringers off e-commerce platforms. For example, counterfeiters can just change their name or repost infringing items under a new name or different account.20
The limits of filters—which will fail sometimes (likely often)—and the fact that startups would be incapable of identifying and removing all infringement on their own also brings substantial litigation cost and risk. Expanding platform liability over users’ alleged IP infringement would put early-stage companies at risk of being sued out of existence. It would also discourage entrepreneurs and investors from developing new technology or pursuing new e-commerce business models. Internet platforms, in particular, have been able to innovate and launch because they do not have to hire teams of lawyers to brace for litigation when users are accused of infringement. And investors would be reluctant to fund emerging e-commerce platforms if they knew the money would go to cover liability for user infringement.21