August 2009 Archives

The largest cybersquatting judgment ever has been upheld by a federal court in the Northern District of California. The court denied the motion of the defendant -- OnlineNIC, an Internet domain registration company in San Francisco -- to set aside a December 2008 judgment in which Verizon was awarded $33.15 million.

The case is based on OnlineNIC's attempts to take advantage of Verizon and Verizon customers by using Internet names that are easily confused with legitimate Verizon names.

This is the most recent decision in the case against OnlineNIC, which had unlawfully registered at least 663 domain names that were either identical to or confusingly similar to Verizon trademarks. The court had previously found that OnlineNIC's bad faith registrations of Verizon-related domain names were designed to attract Web users who were seeking to access Verizon's legitimate Web sites, and calculated an award based on $50,000 per domain name.

In its most recent decision, on Tuesday (Aug. 25), the court concluded that OnlineNIC is "a serial cybersquatter," that, in "blatant and willful violation" of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, registered Verizon domain names to "prey on consumer confusion." As the court found, "OnlineNIC's intent was to divert consumers searching for Verizon's Web sites." In addition to upholding the original decision, the court also ordered OnlineNIC to pay Verizon its attorneys' fees and costs.

"We hope the court's decision goes a long way toward protecting consumers from becoming targets of Internet abuses and frauds," said Sarah Deutsch, Verizon vice president and associate general counsel. "Verizon is determined to protect our brand and consumers from cybersquatters whose businesses are based on misleading consumers."

Verizon Has Won a String of Similar Cases

In earlier cybersquatting cases, courts granted contested preliminary injunctions against four different violators. Verizon continues to increase its enforcement activities in trademark cases as part of its broader effort to protect its brand and put its intellectual property innovations to work.

In 2008, Verizon's intellectual property legal group was named one of the five best in the world by the International Law Office, with the support of the Association of Corporate Counsel.

SOURCE Verizon

The May 2009 collapse of a Dallas Cowboys practice facility was caused by the structure's faulty design, poor workmanship and a failure to disclose that the building was out of compliance with building codes, according to two lawsuits filed by The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson on behalf of injured Cowboys' scouting assistant Richard Behm and special teams coach Joe DeCamillis.

Mr. Behm and Mr. DeCamillis and several others were injured at the Valley Ranch practice facility during a thunderstorm on May 2 when the roof of the structure split open, causing heavy steel supports to crumple and fall. Mr. Behm was paralyzed from the waist down when his spine was severed by falling debris, and Mr. DeCamillis suffered a serious compression fracture with dislocation of a cervical vertebrae.

The lawsuits charge that the building's faulty tent-like design presented a safety hazard, and that poor workmanship and improper use of building materials caused the structure to be inadequately secured to its concrete foundation. According to the lawsuits, the building designer was aware of the safety problems but performed only a partial temporary repair and represented to the Cowboys that the design defaults had been permanently and adequately repaired.

The defendants include building manufacturer Summit Structures LLC of Allentown, Pa.; marketer and distributor Cover-All Building Systems Inc. of Saskatoon, Canada; engineer Scott Jacobs and engineering services company JCI Holding LLC of Las Vegas; construction contractor Midwest Building and Fencing Inc. of South Haven, Minn.; construction materials supplier Hilti Inc. of Tulsa, Okla.; and concrete contractor Wrangler Concrete Construction LP of Burleson, Texas.

"What we've learned in our investigation is that this tragedy simply did not have to happen," says attorney Frank Branson, lead counsel for Mr. Behm and Mr. DeCamillis. "Our clients would never have been injured if the building had been constructed properly, if repairs were performed as promised, or if those responsible had made any of these shortcomings known. Putting people in this building as it was designed and built was a recipe for disaster."

The lawsuits charge the defendants with negligence and gross negligence and seek unspecified damages, including past and future medical treatment and loss of earning capacity for Mr. Behm and Mr.DeCamillis.

The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson represents clients in cases involving complex product liability, catastrophic injury, commercial air crashes, professional negligence, and business torts. To learn more about Mr. Branson and his firm, visit http://www.flbranson.com.

This week hundreds of delivery drivers at the nation's largest uniform provider, Cintas, were notified a $22.75 million settlement agreement had been reached in the class action overtime lawsuit, Veliz v. Cintas Corporation. It was a long road for the uniform delivery drivers, whose suit, filed in 2003, alleged Cintas misclassified thousands of their route drivers as exempt employees in order to avoid paying overtime required by state and federal laws.

"After six long years of delay tactics and needless posturing by Cintas, drivers will finally receive just compensation for overtime work performed that was wrongly withheld," said Bruce Raynor, President of Workers United, the laundry workers union that has been working with Cintas production workers seeking to form a union. "In the end justice was delayed but not denied, as Cintas ultimately agreed to the recommended settlement agreement negotiated through the arbitration process."

The Cintas drivers who pick up soiled uniforms, oily rags and other items and drop off a fresh supply were classified by the company as salaried workers instead of hourly workers, who would be entitled to overtime pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires workers to be compensated for all hours worked, unless they are specifically exempted. Executives and professionals are exempted and can be required to work more than 40 hours a week without being paid overtime. The drivers argued that their jobs driving trucks, delivering uniforms and servicing existing contracts do not make them exempt from being paid for hours worked over 40 hours.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Altshuler Berzon LLP, are notifying plaintiffs that the general terms of settlement had been reached. However, a frame work for allocation of funds is still being worked on and it will still be months before the final settlement agreement is approved by the court. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Cintas is the largest uniform rental provider and industrial launderer in North America. Cintas provides laundry, uniforms and other business services to customers across North America. The company has a troubling history with worker protection laws, including being assessed the largest proposed OSHA fine in the service sector for safety violations surrounding the death of Eleazar Torres Gomez in Oklahoma.

Workers United, SEIU is a union of 150,000 workers in the US and Canada who work in the laundry, food service, hospitality, gaming, apparel, textile, manufacturing and distribution industries.

Source: Workers United

There has been significant public interest and media coverage around this case over the last few days. For legal reasons, Nude has been unable to comment or make any statement until today.

Nude was founded by Bryan Meehan and Ali Hewson. Bryan originally co-founded Fresh & Wild, the UK's largest chain of Natural and Organic stores. Nude was created as a pioneering natural skincare range and is known for its innovative use of pre and probiotics.

Nude applied for and successfully registered the pan-European Community Trademark (CTM) for the word 'Nude' to be used as a trade mark specifically for perfumery and skincare, as well as for other products.

In May 2008, when asked for permission to use the trade mark 'Nude' for a Stella McCartney perfume, Nude - though great admirers of Stella McCartney - respectfully refused as a Nude scent is forthcoming..

Nude considers the launch of 'Stella Nude' by L'Oreal to be a clear infringement of Nude's trade mark. To protect their brand, Nude was forced to take the matter to the English High Court.

On August 20(th), the High Court confirmed that Nude has a clearly arguable claim of trade mark infringement against the Stella Nude perfume. The Judge also rejected L'Oreal's arguments that Nude's trade mark in relation to perfume was obviously invalid saying he was not convinced 'Nude' was descriptive of perfume. Nude was not granted an interim injunction to prevent the launch of Stella Nude because of the harm that would cause to L'Oreal due to the imminent launch, but the Judge concluded that whilst Nude "may ultimately prevail at the trial, it seems to me that an injunction and damages at that stage, though far from perfect as remedies, are more likely to be able to restore [Nude] to their rightful position".

A trial of Nude's claim will take place next year.

Source: Nude Skincare

Legal Services NYC today filed a lawsuit in State Supreme Court on behalf of low-income New Yorkers who have been denied access to vital benefits, such as Food Stamps and Medicaid, solely because they cannot communicate in English, despite a city law requiring the Human Resources Administration (HRA) to provide translation and interpretation services to these individuals. The lawsuit alleges widespread civil rights violations at HRA centers across the five boroughs.

Five years ago, the New York City Council passed The Equal Access to Human Services Act of 2003 (Local Law 73), which mandates the provision of translation and interpretation services at HRA centers. Legal Services NYC has actively monitored HRA's compliance with this law over the past five years, documenting the way in which limited English proficient (LEP) clients are routinely denied services at their HRA centers while applying for benefits or while simply attempting to maintain them.

In 2007, Legal Services NYC, after continuing to see non-English speaking clients routinely denied access to HRA services, surveyed all 69 centers to monitor compliance with the law. Survey results demonstrated that legally mandated translated applications were not available at 66% of HRA centers and that fewer than two-thirds of the centers had interpreter services available in the most commonly spoken languages of the community, as legally required, for LEP individuals. Since the survey results were released in 2007, Legal Services NYC has continued to monitor and report access problems to HRA. HRA has failed to adequately resolve these reported problems. The lawsuit filed today seeks to compel HRA to immediately comply with the law and to end its discriminatory treatment of non-English speaking New Yorkers.

Mercedes Cruz is an LEP mother of three who is one of six plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Ms. Cruz's native language is Spanish, the second most commonly spoken language in the city and a language spoken by over 2 million New York City residents, and she and her family subsist entirely on Public Assistance Benefits. However, since 2007, when she opened her Public Assistance case, HRA's Income Maintenance Center #63 - Coney Island has failed to provide her with a Spanish interpreter at any of her appointments despite her repeated requests. The majority of the documents Ms. Cruz receives from Center #63, including notices that her benefits are being discontinued and notifications of upcoming appointments, are entirely in English. In March 2009, Ms. Cruz went to Center #63 with a letter from her attorney explaining that she was limited English proficient and that the Center was legally required to provide a Spanish interpreter. The Center refused to provide her with an interpreter. Despite Ms. Cruz's attorney's request that the Center's Language Liaison pair Ms. Cruz with a Spanish-speaking caseworker, she is currently assigned to a caseworker who speaks only English. Because she does not understand all of the documents she receives from the Center and all communications she has with Center staff, Ms. Cruz's Public Assistance case has repeatedly been sanctioned and erroneously discontinued.

"Five years ago Mayor Bloomberg proudly signed a landmark civil rights law ensuring equal access to all HRA services. Today, despite a significant investment of taxpayer dollars, HRA is still routinely denying vital services to the most vulnerable New Yorkers in flagrant violation of law. Enough is enough. We call on HRA to immediately remedy its widespread discriminatory treatment of limited English proficient New Yorkers," said Amy Taylor, Language Access Project Coordinator at Legal Services NYC.

"Local Law 73 is the result of modern-day civil rights legislation, and New York's language access laws are a model to localities across the nation. The City's failure to provide the most basic services to all New Yorkers is not only discriminatory and illegal but a stain on our reputation as an international destination and capital of the world. We must treat all New Yorkers with the dignity and respect they deserve," said New York City Council Member John C. Liu, primary sponsor of The Equal Access to Human Services Act of 2003.

"New York City is the most multicultural and multilingual city in the country and must serve as an example of equal access. With HRA programs like food stamps and Medicaid, New Yorkers depend on language assistance in government for the basic necessities of life. HRA must act now to provide essential translations and interpreters in compliance with the law to meet the needs of all New Yorkers," said Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer.

"In order to best serve the richly diverse population of New York City, it is vital that appropriate translation services are offered to all people when accessing public benefits. This lawsuit serves as an important reminder to the challenges many New Yorkers face when trying to access assistance," said New York City Council Member Annabel Palma.

"Every week we see families and individuals facing emergencies such as evictions due to unpaid rent, utility shut- offs or hunger because they either did not understand a request that was written only in English or because they cannot communicate with City workers due to their limited English proficiency. These families cannot get help because the City's failure to provide them with translation and interpretation services prevents them from applying for or fully understanding the benefits available to them. Increasing barriers to service because of a lack of translation leaves an already vulnerable population even more burdened," said Jennifer Vallone, the Director of Project Home at University Settlement, which referred LEP clients to Legal Services NYC as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Source: Legal Services NYC

Smith & Nephew Inc's Advanced Wound Management division (LSE: SN; NYSE: SNN) announced that the German District Court in Dusseldorf decided in favour of Smith & Nephew by rejecting a request from Kinetic Concepts, Inc (NYSE: KCI) for a Preliminary Injunction against the marketing of Smith & Nephew's RENASYS* EZ Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) pump in Germany based on alleged infringement of the KCI patent EP0777504.

The District Court decision allows for Smith & Nephew to continue to commercialize its RENASYSEZNPWT product portfolio in Germany.

"This win in favor of Smith & Nephew allows us to continue providing wound care professionals in Germany with options for the latest innovations for NPWT," said Robin Carlstein, Senior Vice President of Advanced Wound Devices at Smith & Nephew. "Clearly, we are pleased with the German District Court's findings in this matter and look forward to continuing to provide our customers with our full range of RENASYS NPWT products in a very important market for the company."

For more information regarding Smith & Nephew, please visit our Web site at http://www.smith-nephew.com.

About Smith & Nephew

Smith & Nephew is a global medical technology business, specializing in Orthopaedics, including Reconstruction, Trauma and Clinical Therapies, Endoscopy and Advanced Wound Management. Smith & Nephew is a global leader in arthroscopy and advanced wound management and is one of the leading global orthopaedics companies.

Smith & Nephew is dedicated to helping improve people's lives. The Company prides itself on the strength of its relationships with its surgeons and professional healthcare customers, with whom its name is synonymous with high standards of performance, innovation and trust. The Company operates in 32 countries around the world. Annual sales in 2008 were nearly $3.8 billion.

SOURCE Smith & Nephew Inc

A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc. at its terminal in Little Rock, Arkansas. The lawsuit, Douglas, et al. v. First Student, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-00652, was filed on Friday, July 31, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, on behalf of "all persons employed by First Student, Inc. as drivers and/or dispatchers at its terminal in Little Rock, Arkansas at any time from August 1, 2006 to the present."

This is the second class action lawsuit filed on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc., which describes itself on its website as "North America's leading school bus transportation services company and responsible for safely transporting 4 million students to and from school every day." Another class action lawsuit, Hoffman v. First Student, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-1882, is currently pending against First Student, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Hoffman case, which also alleges claims of unpaid wages and unpaid overtime on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers in Maryland, has already been approved by the court as a class action and will go to trial soon.

The lawsuit that was just filed on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc. in Arkansas alleges that First Student, Inc. violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Arkansas state laws by failing to pay its bus drivers and dispatchers for all hours and overtime worked. For example, the Complaint alleges that drivers are paid for two and a half hours for their morning route and two and a half hours for their afternoon route regardless of how many hours it actually takes them to complete their routes and complete other work associated with their routes such as pre-trip and post-trip inspections. Similarly, the bus drivers allege that they are not paid for all of their work time for field trips and athletic events. First Student, Inc.'s website states that it maintains a fleet of more than 60,000 school buses and 68,000 drivers nationwide.

"First Student, Inc. appears to be engaging in violations of the federal and state overtime laws by requiring its bus drivers and dispatchers to spend numerous hours working off-the-clock and without compensation. The plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to ask that First Student, Inc. be held accountable for failing to pay its employees wages they have legitimately earned," said Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. Another attorney for the plaintiffs in both cases, C. Christopher Brown of Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, states, "The conduct we have seen in these cases and across First Student, Inc.'s terminals, whether in Baltimore, Maryland or Little Rock, Arkansas, is similar, and it is important that it be addressed by the courts and that a remedy is fashioned that will ensure that First Student, Inc. changes its policies to ensure that workers are paid for all of their time spent working."

Current and former employees of First Student, Inc. can obtain additional information about these lawsuits by calling Shanon Carson at (215) 875-4656 or Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen at (215) 875-3053, or by email at scarson@bm.net or sschalman-bergen@bm.net. Information concerning the above cases, including electronic copies of the complaints, is also available at www.bergermontague.com .

This case is being prosecuted by a national consortium of law firms including Berger & Montague, P.C., based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, based in Baltimore, Maryland; and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, based in San Francisco, California. An additional law firm, Lavey & Burnett, based in Little Rock, Arkansas, is also representing the workers in the case filed on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers in Arkansas.

SOURCE Berger & Montague, P.C.