Intellectual Property Claims:
eCommerce has given rise to new forms of alleged trademark infringement or dilution on the Internet, such as:
 

1.	Unauthorized use of a domain name.
2.	“Meta-tagging,” or embedding words, including protected trademarks, in a Web site that will direct search engines to the site.
3.	“Bypassing” the pages of linked site that contain advertising.
4.	“Framing” a linked site containing a trademark to cover advertising material.

Similarly, there have been claims against site operators alleging copyright infringement arising from the uploading or downloading of alleged copyrighted material (such as in Playboy Enters, Inc. v. Webb World, Inc., 1999).

Also, there have been prominent claims of the infringement of patented methods of doing business, most notably the 1999 Amazon.com suit against Barnes & Nobel regarding “one-click” technology.

*In addition to this expanding area of Intellectual Property Law, that I refer to as “Cyberspace Law,” there are expanding concepts of traditional liability law as it applies to the Net (See footnote at the end of the following chart for additional information and excerpts from my textbook). 

Domain Name Disputes
www.domainhandbook.com/ 
Domain Name Handbook R&D books by Rony. Re: Covers domain name disputes related to registering or using another’s domain name that may be trademarked.  Domain name law involves the uniform dispute resolution policy by the Internet Corporation for assigned names and numbers (ICANN), and the anti-cyber-squatting consumer protection act.  See, white paper: “Current Regulations and Procedures for Resolving Domain Name Disputes” by: Riccoboni.  Cases: Interstellar Starship Servs. Ltd. v. Erie, Inc., 184 F.3rd 1107 (9th Cir. 1999); Cardservice Int'l, Inc. v. McGee, 950 F. Supp. 737 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff'd, 1997 U.S. App. Lexus (4th Cir. Va. Nov 18, 1997).

Search Watch on Meta Tag Law Suits
www.searchenginewatch.com/resources/metasuits.html
Meta Tagging:
Cases: 
•    Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Calvin Designer Label, 985 F.Supp. 1220 (N. D. Cal 1997); 
•    Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment, 987F.Sup.337(D.N.J. 1997); 

Bypassing: 
Case: 
•    Ticketmaster v. Microsoft, No. 97-3055DPP(C.D.Cal. filed April 28, 1997);

Framing:
Case: 
•    Washing Post Co. v. Total News, Inc., 97Cir.1190(S.D.N.Y. filed Feb 20, 1997). 

* Third-party (liability) Over the Net:
Coverage for liability to third parties over or by way of the Internet comes under the umbrella of "property damage" law which has evolved over the years from personal (chattle) property laws, together with the Universal Commercial Code and Insurance Liability law, which typically defines "property damage" to (wholly inadequately) inlude:
•  “Physical injury to tangible property including all resulting loss of use of that property;”
•  “Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.”

    Needless to point out, in this era of the Net, there can be great loss and damage other than to merely tangible properrty (i.e. pirating of intellectual property, defamation, etc.)  Moreover, the scope of the terms “tangible property”, “physical injury” and “loss of use” in the e-commerce world isn’t certain.  As in the first-party context, many will challenge claims arguing that purely economic loss that’s not related to physical harm isn’t covered for purposes of insurance claims.  For example, compare the case of Segate Tech. Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 1988, in which incorporation of defective disk drives into personal computers wasn’t covered under insurance “property damage,” to Retail Systems, Inc. v. CNA Is., 1991, in which loss of computer tape was considered physical injury to tangible property.  These cases beg the question, in this era when content is King.

    Many of the content-based intellectual property, media, and privacy exposures as the new law evolves might be presented not as property damage claims, but rather as “personal injury” or “advertising injury” claims under existing liability concept.  A typical “advertising injury” includes:
 
 

•	Oral or written publication of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person’s or organization’s goods or services.
•	Oral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.
•	Use of another’s advertising ideas.
•	Infringing upon another’s copyright, trade dress, or slogan in your advertisement.

    “Personal injury” might include the first two elements but not the latter two.  Insurance coverage questions are certain to arise regarding whether the policyholder’s actions constitute covered “publication.”  For example, many businesses gather and package information for targeted marketing.  The business objective isn’t to disseminate the information in th traditional sense.  Is that “Publication?” Further marketing on the Web involves the planting of Meta Tags that may infringe trademarks (i.e. Play case, ib. id. there by directing and linking others to your site.  For law, it's a new world.)