Computer Forensics Docket Sheet

In a case involving allegations of trademark infringement and unfair competition, the plaintiff accused the defendant of illegally using the Internet to sell the plaintiff's brand of cigarettes, which was intended only for sale abroad, to customers in the United States. Arguing that the plaintiff's cigarettes accounted for “merely a fraction” of the products sold, the defendant presented two batches of sales data. The plaintiff's computer-forensics expert examined the sales data and found inconsistencies in computer-programming formulas, individual sales records, and customer e-mail confirmations. After being confronted with the expert's analysis, the defendant admitted its sales data was unreliable, and likely fraudulent. Finding the defendant's “supporting testimony and data … so riddled with fabrication and deception as to warrant the inference that the truth is the exact opposite of what [the defendant] contends,” the court ordered the transfer of the defendant's domain names to the plaintiff. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Otamedia Ltd., 2004 WL 1878751 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2004).

Alleging that a former employee stole a customer list and other confidential information, the plaintiff brought charges against the former employee and his new company for violating a noncompete clause. In a court-ordered settlement, the defendants stated that they did not possess the plaintiff's customer list or any other confidential information, agreed that the former employee would refrain from working for the defendant for a period of time and confirmed that they would not solicit any of the plaintiff's customers. Several months after the court-ordered settlement, the plaintiff filed a contempt proceeding against the defendant for violating the agreement by possessing the plaintiff's customer list, working with the former employee and soliciting the plaintiff's customers. The court ordered a computer-forensics examination of the defendants' computers, resulting in the discovery of hundreds of e-mails and other relevant documents, including the customer list and other various e-mails from the former employee to many of the defendant's employees. Finding that the defendants violated the settlement order, the court stated that the defendants “acted willfully and in some cases maliciously in violating the Order … perhaps the best description of [their] acts … would be 'reckless indifference' which has been found to be equivalent to willfulness … To put it bluntly they just didn't care about the Order.” The court awarded $820,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as legal fees and costs. Creditriskmonitor.com, Inc. v. Fensterstock, No. 006211/2001 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 6, 2004).

Forensics Expert Helps Prove Net Trade
Infringement Allegations

In a case involving allegations of trademark infringement and unfair competition, the plaintiff accused the defendant of illegally using the Internet to sell the plaintiff's brand of cigarettes, which was intended only for sale abroad, to customers in the United States. Arguing that the plaintiff's cigarettes accounted for “merely a fraction” of the products sold, the defendant presented two batches of sales data. The plaintiff's computer-forensics expert examined the sales data and found inconsistencies in computer-programming formulas, individual sales records, and customer e-mail confirmations. After being confronted with the expert's analysis, the defendant admitted its sales data was unreliable, and likely fraudulent. Finding the defendant's “supporting testimony and data … so riddled with fabrication and deception as to warrant the inference that the truth is the exact opposite of what [the defendant] contends,” the court ordered the transfer of the defendant's domain names to the plaintiff. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Otamedia Ltd., 2004 WL 1878751 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2004).

Alleging that a former employee stole a customer list and other confidential information, the plaintiff brought charges against the former employee and his new company for violating a noncompete clause. In a court-ordered settlement, the defendants stated that they did not possess the plaintiff's customer list or any other confidential information, agreed that the former employee would refrain from working for the defendant for a period of time and confirmed that they would not solicit any of the plaintiff's customers. Several months after the court-ordered settlement, the plaintiff filed a contempt proceeding against the defendant for violating the agreement by possessing the plaintiff's customer list, working with the former employee and soliciting the plaintiff's customers. The court ordered a computer-forensics examination of the defendants' computers, resulting in the discovery of hundreds of e-mails and other relevant documents, including the customer list and other various e-mails from the former employee to many of the defendant's employees. Finding that the defendants violated the settlement order, the court stated that the defendants “acted willfully and in some cases maliciously in violating the Order … perhaps the best description of [their] acts … would be 'reckless indifference' which has been found to be equivalent to willfulness … To put it bluntly they just didn't care about the Order.” The court awarded $820,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as legal fees and costs. Creditriskmonitor.com, Inc. v. Fensterstock, No. 006211/2001 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 6, 2004).