This is a temporary restraining order. Chanel is posting a bond for any damages to the defendants, should the trial prove them innocent.
Regarding de-indexing, there is only one paragraph (10) which says the domains "shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed", without specifying who will do this action. This is vague, but I don't think it can be interpreted as an order to Google / FB because:
- the list of search engines / social sites is open ended
- the previous paragraphs require actions by the plaintiff or by the defendants (e.g. preserve computer files). Among others, paragraph (8) states that the plaintiff can use Google Webmaster Tools on these domains.
- the (temporary) transfer of DNS records is specified in small technical details (including multiple technical solutions for the redirection involved) in multiple paragraphs, while this arguably much more complex requirement receives minimum treatment.
While the language is indeed a bit vague in paragraph (10), I think consideration of all these factors seems to indicate it is the plaintiff and the defendants who are to take action to see the sites de-indexed (using, e.g., Google Webmaster Tools) and not the indexing companies.
Right, so couldn't this order more resonably be interpreted by saying the web sites need to post no-robots in their meta info to delist themselves rather than Google having to do it?
More like, stop having yourself indexed rather than de-indexing.
(10) The Group II Subject Domain Names shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed from any search result pages of all Internet search engines including, but not limited to, Google, Bing and Yahoo, and all social media websites including, but not limited to, Facebook, Google+, and Twitter ...
http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Se...
This is a temporary restraining order. Chanel is posting a bond for any damages to the defendants, should the trial prove them innocent.
Regarding de-indexing, there is only one paragraph (10) which says the domains "shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed", without specifying who will do this action. This is vague, but I don't think it can be interpreted as an order to Google / FB because:
- the list of search engines / social sites is open ended
- the previous paragraphs require actions by the plaintiff or by the defendants (e.g. preserve computer files). Among others, paragraph (8) states that the plaintiff can use Google Webmaster Tools on these domains.
- the (temporary) transfer of DNS records is specified in small technical details (including multiple technical solutions for the redirection involved) in multiple paragraphs, while this arguably much more complex requirement receives minimum treatment.
While the language is indeed a bit vague in paragraph (10), I think consideration of all these factors seems to indicate it is the plaintiff and the defendants who are to take action to see the sites de-indexed (using, e.g., Google Webmaster Tools) and not the indexing companies.