Monday, April 25, 2005
Sunday, April 24, 2005
No, really, I'm not here. (Smackdown)
In McFarland v. Brier, 769 A.2d 605 (R.I. 2001), The Supreme Court reviewed a judgment for the plaintiffs, who alleged misappropriation of trade secrets amongst other charges. The defendant's behavior was less than exemplary:
In the weeks that followed Bibeau's departure from R&L, McFarland was informed by his customers that CSI was soliticing their business by submitting bids for the same products sold by R&L. Not only were Brier and Bibeau targeting R&L's customers, they also were trying to recruit R&L sales representatives. A witness described a meeting attended by both Brier and Bibeau, who were attempting to lure a long-time R&L sales representative away from R&L to work for CSI. The witness was warned that if she ever was questioned about the meeting, that Bibeau was in fact "not present" at the meeting. It was explained to her that beacuse of a noncompetition agreement that he signed with R&L, Bibeau could not own or be associated with a company that competed with R&L. Bibeau then assured the witness that he possessed all of R&L's computer programs, as well as the customer information necessary to complete with R&L.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court goes on to hold that the UTSA expressly provides for exemplary damages for willful and malicious appropriation, like the action of the defendants here:
"Under the facts of this case, we are satisfied that if ever egregious misconduct deserving of punitive damages has occurred, this is such a case."
In the weeks that followed Bibeau's departure from R&L, McFarland was informed by his customers that CSI was soliticing their business by submitting bids for the same products sold by R&L. Not only were Brier and Bibeau targeting R&L's customers, they also were trying to recruit R&L sales representatives. A witness described a meeting attended by both Brier and Bibeau, who were attempting to lure a long-time R&L sales representative away from R&L to work for CSI. The witness was warned that if she ever was questioned about the meeting, that Bibeau was in fact "not present" at the meeting. It was explained to her that beacuse of a noncompetition agreement that he signed with R&L, Bibeau could not own or be associated with a company that competed with R&L. Bibeau then assured the witness that he possessed all of R&L's computer programs, as well as the customer information necessary to complete with R&L.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court goes on to hold that the UTSA expressly provides for exemplary damages for willful and malicious appropriation, like the action of the defendants here:
"Under the facts of this case, we are satisfied that if ever egregious misconduct deserving of punitive damages has occurred, this is such a case."
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Shady Records, Inc.
Not so much funny, as mildly interesting: Southern District of New York denies both parties summary judgment in Shady Records, Inc. v. Source Enterprises, Inc., WL 14920 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
"The events central to this case span a fifteen-year period, and a geographic distance of similar scope, from the basements of Detroit to the upper echelons of hip-hop society in New York City....
The Source Parties [aka Source Magazine] have been vocal critics of [Marshall] Mathers [aka Eminem], and have used their magazine as a vehicle for challenging his authenticity as a white hip-hop artist in a genre created and dominated by African Americans. Having come into possession of two songs recorded by Mathers featuring crude racist invective denigrating women of color, the Source Parties eagerly publicized the recordings as substantiating their critique of Mathers as a racist profiteer, exploiting black culture for financial gain. The resulting overlitigation of the case serves to obscure what is, at its core, a fairly straightforward dispute as to whether the Source Parties can claim a legitimate fair use defense that Shady's copyrighted materials were used in the interest of disclosing a newsworthy matter. The Court finds that this issue, practically alone of all of the issues raised by the parties in their motions for summary judgment, presents genuine issues of material fact that must await ultimate determination at trial."
"The events central to this case span a fifteen-year period, and a geographic distance of similar scope, from the basements of Detroit to the upper echelons of hip-hop society in New York City....
The Source Parties [aka Source Magazine] have been vocal critics of [Marshall] Mathers [aka Eminem], and have used their magazine as a vehicle for challenging his authenticity as a white hip-hop artist in a genre created and dominated by African Americans. Having come into possession of two songs recorded by Mathers featuring crude racist invective denigrating women of color, the Source Parties eagerly publicized the recordings as substantiating their critique of Mathers as a racist profiteer, exploiting black culture for financial gain. The resulting overlitigation of the case serves to obscure what is, at its core, a fairly straightforward dispute as to whether the Source Parties can claim a legitimate fair use defense that Shady's copyrighted materials were used in the interest of disclosing a newsworthy matter. The Court finds that this issue, practically alone of all of the issues raised by the parties in their motions for summary judgment, presents genuine issues of material fact that must await ultimate determination at trial."
Blogger Bloggerson
On being able to copyright phonebook listings:
"An Icelandic white pages listing is original. Traditional names and the uses of patronyms and matronyms result in many identical names. A substantial portion of the male population is named Magnus Magnusson. So to identify subscribers, Icelandic phone books often include creatively chosen personal information (Magnus Magnusson, the golfing fan, drives an old Volkswagen beetle.)"
-Intellectual Property Examples & Explanations, p. 12.
"An Icelandic white pages listing is original. Traditional names and the uses of patronyms and matronyms result in many identical names. A substantial portion of the male population is named Magnus Magnusson. So to identify subscribers, Icelandic phone books often include creatively chosen personal information (Magnus Magnusson, the golfing fan, drives an old Volkswagen beetle.)"
-Intellectual Property Examples & Explanations, p. 12.
Monday, April 18, 2005
McPost
In Quality Inns International, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 695 F.Supp.198 (Md. 1988), Quality Inns sought a declaratory judgment that they could name a new chain of hotels "McSleep Inn." McDonald's Corporation argued trademark infringement. Quality Inns raised a generic defense that the prefix "Mc" has derived a singular meaning and become part of the language. Quality Inns offered evidence which reviewed journalistic use of the prefix "Mc" for purposes of deriving its meaning and to evidence its common usage. The court took notice of several examples, including:
"A news report placed into evidence referred to the trial before this court as taking place in the McCourt, which, of course, would make the judge the McJudge. While the Court understood that association with the Courthouse in Baltimore, it oculd not come to grips with the suggestion tha the trial was before a McJudge. The Court could find few, if any, of the attributes of "Mc" used by McDonald's or by the journalists otherwise to fit. Perhaps this McPinion will fulfill that prophecy."
The McCourt went on to hold that the "attribution of source to McDonald's in the use of "Mc" is strong and persists," and rejected "any contention that McDonald's has lost its right to enforce its marks because "Mc" has become a prefix with a single meaning that has become part of the English language and beyond McDonald's control."
"A news report placed into evidence referred to the trial before this court as taking place in the McCourt, which, of course, would make the judge the McJudge. While the Court understood that association with the Courthouse in Baltimore, it oculd not come to grips with the suggestion tha the trial was before a McJudge. The Court could find few, if any, of the attributes of "Mc" used by McDonald's or by the journalists otherwise to fit. Perhaps this McPinion will fulfill that prophecy."
The McCourt went on to hold that the "attribution of source to McDonald's in the use of "Mc" is strong and persists," and rejected "any contention that McDonald's has lost its right to enforce its marks because "Mc" has become a prefix with a single meaning that has become part of the English language and beyond McDonald's control."
Because he's laying it on pretty thick
IDX Systems Corporation v. Epic Systems Corporation, 285 F.3d 581 (7th 2002).
"According to IDX, "a 43 pages description of the methods and processes underlying and the inter-relationships among various features making up IDX's software package" is specific enough. No, it isn't....
Other details, such as the algorithms that the software usese to do real-time erro checking (a vaunted feature of IDX's software), may be genuine trade secrets, but IDX has not tired to separate them from elements such as its input and output formats."
"According to IDX, "a 43 pages description of the methods and processes underlying and the inter-relationships among various features making up IDX's software package" is specific enough. No, it isn't....
Other details, such as the algorithms that the software usese to do real-time erro checking (a vaunted feature of IDX's software), may be genuine trade secrets, but IDX has not tired to separate them from elements such as its input and output formats."
Thursday, April 14, 2005
No, deductions do not begin at conception.
In Cassman v. U.S., 31 Fed.Cl. 121 (Fed. Cl. 1994), Plaintiffs were denied a 'dependent' tax deduction for an unborn child:
Plaintiffs argue that Jonathan Cassman was a resident of the United States prior to his birth because his mother was a resident, and they ask the court ot take judicial notice of the fact that it would have been physically impossible for the mother to be a resident and her unborn child not to be a resident. This argument is without merit. The court cannot justify viewing an unborn child as "residing" anywhere.
Plaintiffs argue that Jonathan Cassman was a resident of the United States prior to his birth because his mother was a resident, and they ask the court ot take judicial notice of the fact that it would have been physically impossible for the mother to be a resident and her unborn child not to be a resident. This argument is without merit. The court cannot justify viewing an unborn child as "residing" anywhere.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
We Officially Suck.com
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wallmartcanadasucks.com (http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1104.html), Wal-Mart sued the operator of Wallmartcanadasucks.com, claiming trademark infringement.
As in Bally, there is little likelihood that Wal-Mart will extend its business to operate an official anti Wal-Mart site.
As in Bally, there is little likelihood that Wal-Mart will extend its business to operate an official anti Wal-Mart site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
