Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Abuse of Process – When Parties Submit Frivolous Filings to Delay Litigation and Increase Costs

By ,

SPG

The word “process” as used in the tort of abuse of process “has been interpreted broadly, and encompasses the entire range of procedures incident to the litigation process. Rosen v. American Bank of Rolla, 627 A.2d 190, 192-193 (Pa. Super. 1993).

To establish a claim for abuse of process in Pennsylvania it must be shown that the party: (1) used a legal process against the other party, (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed; and (3) harm has been caused to the other party. Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1238 (Pa. Super. 2008). “[C]ourts have consistently held or assumed that plaintiffs asserting a claim under Pennsylvania law for abuse of process that arises out of an underlying civil case need only establish the three common elements described above”. Langman v. Keystone Nat ‘1 Bank & Trust Co., et al, 672 F. Supp.2d 691, 700 (E.D.Pa. 2009). A plaintiff asserting an abuse of process claim does not have to show that the underlying proceedings terminated in his favor. Id., at 701; Lerner, 954 A.2d at 1238.

For more information on abuse of process, contact Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Craigslist Copyright Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

A long-standing case between Craigslist and 3taps has finally been resolved. The two companies came to a settlement agreement for one million dollars that Craigslist will be donating to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) over the next decade. Additionally, 3taps will be shutting down.

Trademark Infringement, Unethical Competition and Breach of Contract

Craigslist sued 3taps, as well as another company, PadMapper, in July 2012, claiming that both companies were guilty of copyright infringement. PadMapper took the data Craigslist had for apartment listings and created its own site that was easier to use, while 3taps took other Craigslist postings and published them on third-party websites. In addition to copyright infringement, PadMapper and 3taps were also accused of infringing on the Craigslist trademark, unethically competing with Craigslist and breaching Craigslist contracts.

Countersuit Filed

In late 2012, 3taps filed a countersuit against Craigslist, opening the door to a legal battle that lasted nearly three years. 3taps countered that Craigslist had effectively created a copyright infringement trap by their practice of selectively obtaining copyright assignments and registrations in some user-generated posts, but failing to inform visitors which posts its own.

The recent settlement fully resolves each lawsuit. The one million dollars that 3taps will pay to Craigslist will help support the EFF, which will receive $100,000 a year for 10 years, and 3taps will no longer be allowed to operate.

Copyright Litigation Trap Questions Remain

There is still debate regarding the question of legality for private enterprises which operate public websites and attempt to exclude certain visitors, while at the same time exposing the excluded visitor to civil and criminal liability through use of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Philadelphia Copyright Infringement Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract and Business Litigation Claims

Certain types of small businesses and websites that source their data from other systems may be exposed to the potential of being targeted in lawsuits filed by the original source company or website. If you are being sued over copyright infringement or are considering filing a lawsuit of your own, our Philadelphia litigation lawyers can help. We can consult on how to avoid trademark litigation and offer legal counsel on how to pursue a trademark violation claim if one is warranted. At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we are skilled in breach of contract and copyright infringement litigation and will pursue your case until we reach a viable outcome or settlement. Please call 215-574-0600 or fill out an online contact form today to schedule your consultation.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers : Significant Trademark Ruling in 9th Circuit

By ,

SPG

Amazon, the online marketplace giant, recently lost an important court case. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the company will be subject to an ongoing trademark lawsuit, which was instigated by Amazon’s publishing of competitors’ list prices. A lower court originally ruled in Amazon’s favor in the case.

Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com involves Multi Time Machine (MTM), a watchmaking company that filed suit against Amazon for “confusing search results.” Consumers who search for “MTM Special Ops” on Amazon do not actually see the MTM product they are searching for because Amazon does not sell the product. Instead, the search engine provides a list of competitors’ watches that are sold by Amazon. Consumers may be aware the product they are trying to purchase does not come from MTM, but could also think they are purchasing an MTM product since the search results page displays “MTM Special Ops” at the top of the page.

Ruling Not an Automatic Victory

The ruling does not automatically grant MTM a trademark victory. The case will return to court wherein MTM must prove that Amazon intentionally caused this confusion. A judge from the majority ruling said that a jury should have the opportunity to make the final decision. “A jury could infer that users who are confused by the search results will wonder whether a competitor has acquired MTM or is otherwise affiliated with or approved by MTM,” he said.

A dissenting judge disagreed saying that online consumers are knowledgeable enough to understand the difference. He equated the search engine results to a waitress offering a diner Pepsi because it does not serve Coca Cola.

Philadelphia Trademark Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Trademark Infringement Claims

As technology continues to evolve, laws must also be changed to keep up with technology’s fast pace. Across the nation, trademark law is in flux. If you think that an individual or company has violated your trademark or marketed your product in violation of fair trade laws, contact a Philadelphia trademark lawyer at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today. Please call 215-574-0600 or contact us online to schedule your consultation.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers discuss Contra Proferentem: Ambiguity in Contract Construed Against Drafter

By ,

SPG

“Contra proferentem” or “against the offeror” is a legal principal used by Courts in Pennsylvania when parties dispute contractual language. A written instrument is ambiguous if it is reasonably or fairly susceptible of more than one construction. When a contract is ambiguous, it is undisputed that the rule of contra proferentem requires the language to be construed against the drafter and in favor of the other party if the latter’s interpretation is reasonable. Com., State Pub. Sch. Bldg. Auth. v. Noble C. Quandel Co., 585 A.2d 1136, 1144 (1991)

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Public School Building Authority, the Court ruled in favor of Defendant because “a government contract will be construed against the government where, as here, the contractual provision in question is ambiguous and unreasonable, we conclude that the Authority’s interpretation of Paragraph 75 is erroneous and that Quandel must prevail.” Id.

For more information, call Philadelphia contract lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers: Bob Evans Facing Overtime Claims

By ,

SPG

Bob Evans Farms may be required to pay as much as $20 million in back overtime pay to assistant managers as the result of three wage and hour lawsuits filed against the restaurant chain.  Bob Evans assistant managers claim that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by forcing them to work upwards of 45-50 hours per week at a flat salary while performing the same duties as hourly employees.

In the first class-action lawsuit, filed in 2012 by David Snodgrass, a judge ruled that any overtime awarded to the plaintiffs would be paid at one and a half times an employee’s hourly rate for all time exceeding 40 hours per week.  According to Bob Evans Farms’ annual report, if the other two cases are decided in favor of the plaintiffs, the company could owe close to $20 million.  This would be a huge financial blow to Bob Evans, which lost nine million dollars last quarter and was forced to cut more than 60 headquarters positions.

The FLSA determines whether or not employees are eligible for overtime pay.  Employees in supervisory roles may be improperly classified as exempt from overtime if their managerial responsibilities are only a minimal part of their job.  Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green routinely represent clients in FLSA and overtime disputes.  For professional, effective legal representation in Philadelphia, submit an online contact form or call our Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600.

Thirty-Three Women Sue Ford for Sexual Harassment

By ,

SPG

A sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Ford Motor Company has come to include 33 women who claim to have been victimized while working at two Chicago – area plants. Employees at Ford’s Assembly Plant and Stamping Plant allege that they were subject to a hostile work environment that included instances of attempted rape, unwanted sexual advances, touching, groping, and men exposing or showing pictures of their genitals.

The federal suit, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, states that, “Ford is aware of the ongoing discrimination and harassment which occurs on a daily basis in an open manner, such that it is observed by employees and supervisors, and has turned a blind eye toward it.”

The plaintiffs claim that complaints to Ford management were met with more harassment, discrimination, and retaliation – alleging that women who dared to speak up were written up or threatened with termination. “Ford knowingly allowed sexual harassers, molesters, and sex offenders to remain in the workplace and repeat heinous acts of sexual harassment”, they say. The suit includes a description of a “pattern and practice of discrimination” that included male employees receiving days off and overtime pay they had not earned, while women were never granted such privileges.

Ford’s attorney Eugene Scalia, son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, has asked the court to dismiss the case on a wide range of grounds. In a motion to dismiss, the motor company’s legal team wrote, “Ford cannot be held vicariously liable for acts outside the scope of managers’ and supervisors’ employment; the claims are preempted by the Illinois Workers Compensation Act; and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are preempted by the Illinois Human Rights Act.”

Ford Motors is no stranger to sexual harassment lawsuits. In 2000, they settled a similar suit filed by 14 female employees for $19.5 million. If the Chicago plaintiffs can successfully establish their claims for discrimination and retaliation, it is likely that Ford will be required to pay a far greater sum.

For more information, call Philadelphia sexual harassment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Disparaging Trademarks

By ,

SPG

Trademarks are a business asset that help identify a business. Most trademarks promote the business in a positive light. Some trademarks are contested because they are too close to another trademark. Other trademarks can be considered offensive. Trademark applications and contests over trademarks are decided by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB.)

Constitutional Law vs. Trademark Law

The USPTO and TTAB currently decide if a trademark is disparaging based on whether the trademark refers to an identifiable group and whether a substantial part of that group considers the trademark to be offensive. Factors used to decide whether trademarks are disparaging are how a dictionary defines the key words, as well as how and where the trademark will appear.

Offensive or disparaging trademarks raise the issue of whether they are protected by the US Constitution’s Freedom of Speech provision of the First Amendment. Trademark applicants claim that the USPTO and TTAB cannot deny the application even if the trademark is disparaging because the denial violates the First Amendment’s right to free speech. Those who think disparaging trademarks should be denied rely on the federal Lanham Act.

Current Cases

The case of In re McGinley decided the issue in favor of the USPTO and TTAB. The case reasoning was that applicants were still free to use the disparaging words to identify their business – they just could not get an approved trademark for it.

The federal case involving the Asian band relied on In re McGinley to hold that the band could not get a trademark. A dissenting judge in the Asian band case reasoned that it might be time to revisit the In re McGinley decision because recent law has held that commercial speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The federal court overseeing the Asian band case agreed with the dissenting judge and recently decided it would revisit the constitutionality of denying disparaging trademarks.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green handle Intellectual Property Issues

Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus and Green have experience handling intellectual property issues and are knowledgeable in current trademark laws. Our commercial litigation lawyers in Philadelphia have the experience to help businesses overcome the constitutional and legal challenges they often face. Call 215-574-0600 or fill out our online contact form to discuss your intellectual property concerns with an experienced Philadelphia business lawyer today.

Philadelphia Sexual Harassment Lawyers: Wall Street CEO To Pay $18 Million

By ,

SPG

A federal jury has awarded $18 million to former Swedish model Hannah Bouveng in a sexual harassment and defamation suit filed against her boss, Benjamin Wey. As the CEO of New York Global Group, a private equity investment firm with an estimated $1 billion in capital, Wey allegedly pressured Bouveng into having sex, fired her after she tried to end the relationship, and then posted defamatory articles about her on his blog TheBlot after being informed of the lawsuit.

The story began in the summer of 2013, when Mr. Wey hired Bouveng as an assistant in New York City after meeting her at a party in the Hamptons. According to his wife, Michaela, Wey rented his new assistant a luxury apartment in the Financial District, explaining that “Ms. Bouveng could be closer to the office, focus on work and bring him more deals”, which would be good for business.

According the $850 million lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court, Mr. Wey began pushing his new assistant to have sex with him, buying her gifts and bringing her on business trips where he would book only a single room. After several awkward encounters where he successfully pressured her into having sex with him, Bouveng attempted to break off the relationship at Wey’s Behest.

In a statement to the jury, Bouveng’s attorney David Ratner stated, “She was debased. She was degraded. She was defiled. He was delighted… He thought he owned her.”

When Bouveng began refusing her boss’s advances, he threatened to fire her. In her testimony, Bouveng stated, ““He said if I didn’t spend more time with him, he would have to start looking for someone else. He said if I didn’t show him tangible love, he was kicking me out by Aug. 1.”Later on, after discovering her with another man, Bouveng claims that Wey fired her, kicked her out of the apartment and threatened to revoke her visa.

Bouveng proceeded to file suit against Wey in July of 2014, but was only met with more harassment. That month, Wey retaliated by posting several defamatory articles on his blog about Bouveng that included her name, picture, description and accusations of her of being a drug addict, sex slave and prostitute. The suit also states that Wey traveled to Stockholm to harass Bouveng and hire private detectives to stalk her months after she was fired from NYG Group.

In June, an eight-person jury awarded Bouveng $2 million in compensatory damages and $16 million in punitive damages for sexual harassment, retaliation and defamation claims.

For more information on sexual harassment or any other employment law matter, contact Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Attorneys Explain Breach of Fiduciary Duty

By ,

SPG

A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation to have the best interest of another party when making decisions. A lawyer has a fiduciary duty to their client; as does a board member share that same duty to the company’s shareholders. This obligation exists whenever the relationship involves a special dependence on the fiduciary to implement his expertise in acting for the client. The fiduciary must knowingly accept that trust and confidence to exercise his expertise and discretion to act on the client’s behalf. When a legal fiduciary relationship exists, the law prohibits the fiduciary from acting in any manner unfavorable to the interests of the client, including only acting to benefit themselves.

In Sutow v. Family Endowment Partners, two investors sought damages under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). The Sutows claimed over $20 million in investments that were recommended by their advisors were negligent and were similar to a Ponzi scheme. The firm had failed to disclose personal interests in some of the companies recommended for investment to the Sutows. One company was considered “technically insolvent” by an expert for the Sutows and another company was behind on loan payments. Other recommendations and expectations of those companies showed a lack of due diligence according to an expert for the Sutows. Although the firm argued that brokers do not owe a fiduciary duty on non-discretionary trades, the arbitrator awarded $48.4 million to the Sutows.

Philadelphia Business Attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle Breach of Fiduciary Duty Cases

Philadelphia business attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced in handing all aspects of business law and commercial litigation. Our dedicated team of trial lawyers in Philadelphia assist clients in a wide range of complex litigation matters, including breach of fiduciary duty. Call 215-574-0600 or fill out our online contact form to discuss your breach of fiduciary duty concerns with an experienced Philadelphia trial lawyer today.

Philadelphia Wrongful Termination Lawyers:  Robertson v. Hunter Panels LLC, Civ. A. No. 2:13-cv-01047 (W.D. Pa 2013)

By ,

SPG

In April 2012, plaintiff Sandra Robertson, was terminated from her employment at Hunter Panels LLC, of Smithfield. Robinson claimed that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about harassment and a hostile work environment and for accusing the company of running an “old boys’ club,” after the plant manager repeatedly refused to act on her complaints.  When she first complained, the company sent her to a mandatory anger-management program, although the counselor told her she did not need it. A few months later, Robertson again complained about ongoing harassment, and she was fired for her “management style.”

Robertson sued Hunter Panels and its parent, Carlisle Construction Materials Inc., as joint employers, on claims of gender discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and violations under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Robertson claimed that the company created electronic documents to support her termination only after she complained about harassment.

The jury found that Hunter and Carlisle discriminated against Robertson because of her gender, that they subjected her to a hostile work environment because of her gender, and that they unlawfully retaliated against her when they terminated her employment. Robertson was determined to receive $92,000. The jury further determined that Hunter and Carlisle acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally and state protected rights of Robertson, who was determined to receive $12.5 million in punitive damages.

Philadelphia Wrongful Termination Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Obtain Compensation for Victims of Retaliation in the Workplace

Philadelphia wrongful termination lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green fight for the rights of employees who unjustly lose their jobs as a result of retaliation at work, hostile work environment or workplace discrimination. Our Philadelphia retaliation lawyers have the experience to hold negligent employers accountable for their actions. Call our Center City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania law offices today at 215-574-0600 or complete our online contact form to schedule a consultation today.