3 ms·
Half right: > "They ordered New York-based Skiplagged to pay *$4.7 million in disgorgement from the travel site’s revenues* and another $4.7 million for copyri
by xethos 2y ago
Half right:
> "They ordered New York-based Skiplagged to pay *$4.7 million in disgorgement from the travel site’s revenues* and another $4.7 million for copyright infringement."
The fine is half trademark infringement, half for "costing" AA money through not letting them resell the seat themselves
- pabs3 2y agoThe damages were for copyright not trademark infringement, they explicitly didn't give any damages for the trademark infringement.
- xethos 2y agoDamnit - I should know by now not to use the two interchangeably (especially after using the correct term in the quote!). Thanks for the correction here and below
- friedtofu 2y agoMy bad, thanks for pointing that out. IANAL and generally illiterate when it comes to lawyer-speak, but it sounds like the cost(disgorgement) was due to just being an unauthorized re-seller on top of copyright violation am I right? The title of the article & and the article itself does make it sound like AA were awarded the money directly because of the practice of 'skiplagging'... which doesn't seem to be the case. Though it's probably the reason they were targeted in the first place as ejddhbrbrrnrn said.