Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
FL Appeal Court's Memorabilia Trade Secrets Decision
Here's how attorneys unraveled the truth behind an entertainment-and-sports memorabilia trade secrets case that saw the lawyers uncover crucial details during discovery. Trade secrets cases are difficult to prove, but details in a ruling from Florida's Third District Court of Appeal suggest the efforts of Isicoff Ragatz attorneys paid off for their appellee clients. Forbes v. Millionaire Gallery Inc., 3D19-1630.
The ruling came in a case where appellant Richard Forbes, a former employee of Millionaire Gallery Inc., allegedly took 300 photos from the company and used them for marketing and sales "placeholders" on his own website. Forbes' company Signature Royale also displayed on its website scanned images of items owned by Millionaire Gallery, according to the appellate ruling. And Signature Royale allegedly sent email blasts to individuals on Millionaire Gallery's customer contact list. Another telling detail: Millionaire Gallery's litigators — Isicoff Ragatz partners Eric D. Isicoff, Teresa Ragatz and Christopher Yannuzzi in Miami — also discovered that Forbes' company had made 82% of its sales to Millionaire's clients.
Millionaire Gallery produces, markets and sells entertainment and sports memorabilia. Forbes served as Millionaire Gallery's accountant and chief financial officer. Around October 2011, Forbes resigned from his position, noting that he wanted to start a new career. After his resignation, Forbes continued to provide accounting services to Millionaire Gallery. On March 9, 2012, while he was still assisting Millionaire Gallery, Forbes formed Investment Ink LLC, which also sold sports and entertainment memorabilia, and does business under the name Signature Royale.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?