Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Computer Forensics Docket Sheet
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).
Computer Forensics Probe Helps Prove Willful
Violation Of Court Order
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).
Michele C.S. Lange Charity Delich www.krollontrack.com e-Discovery Law & Strategy [email protected]
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.
Computer Forensics Probe Helps Prove Willful
Violation Of Court Order
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).
Michele C.S. Lange Charity Delich www.krollontrack.com e-Discovery Law & Strategy [email protected]
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.