Was the last job an unsuccessful work attempt or not substantial gainful activity?
As you are interviewing the claimant, think through the case following the sequential evaluation process, looking for problems and opportunities. Begin with an analysis of issues surrounding the “onset date,” the date the claimant became disabled.
was an unsuccessful work attempt (20 C.F.R. §404.1574(c)).
If work was not substantial gainful activity or was an unsuccessful work attempt (see §176.2), you may be able to push the onset date back to the time before the claimant did such work.
Work lasting up to six months, which the claimant had to stop because of an impairment, may qualify as an unsuccessful work attempt. Even a series of unsuccessful work attempts may occur after the onset date. Earnings during unsuccessful work attempts will not be considered in determining whether or not work is substantial gainful activity (SGA). See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1574(a)(1) and 404.1574(c). See also Social Security Ruling 05-02. Where your client’s last employment meets this description, the onset date may be moved back to a point before the unsuccessful work effort.
20 C.F.R. §404.1574(c), which applies to employees, provides specific requirements for a work effort to qualify as an unsuccessful work attempt. 20 C.F.R. §404.1575(d) provides the requirements for finding that a self-employed claimant’s work is an unsuccessful work attempt. The two regulations are similar.
Work was reduced so much that it no longer constituted substantial gainful activity (SGA).
Once this threshold requirement is met, different rules apply for unsuccessful work attempts lasting up to three months (20 C.F.R. §§404.1574(c)(3) and 404.1575(d)(3)) and those lasting from three to six months. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1574(c)(4) and 404.1575(d)(4).
Special conditions exist, for example, where a claimant receives assistance from other employees in order to do a job. If, for one reason or another, other employees no longer are available to help the claimant do the job, the special conditions related to the impairment (help from other employees) would be removed. Thus, the claimant must quit work. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1574(c)(3), 404.1575(d)(3) and 404.1573(c), and SSR 05-02.
Work must have been done under special conditions.
20 C.F.R. §§404.1574(c)(4) and 404.1575(d)(4).
SSR 05-02 and 20 C.F.R. §404.1573(c) contain specific examples of “special conditions,” which may be any accommodation of the impairment, or an unusual job opportunity such as a sheltered workshop or job made available for an altruistic reason, whether by a family member or anyone else.
According to 20 C.F.R. §§404.1574(c)(5), 404.1575(d)(5) and Social Security Ruling 05-02, work that constitutes substantial gainful activity lasting more than six months cannot qualify as an unsuccessful work attempt no matter why it ended. Nevertheless, there can be a string of unsuccessful work attempts spread over a period of time much longer than six months. Whenever a claimant is off work for 30 days, changes to an easier job (either with the same employer or a different employer), or has a period of time where work is at less than SGA level, examine the work efforts after this time to determine if they can be characterized as unsuccessful work attempts.
A form for gathering information from an employer appears at §216.1. This form may be used to show that your client’s work of more than three months, but less than six months, qualifies as an unsuccessful work attempt.


§ 700.025 Member of Notification Center.
§ 700.026 Cost of Connecting to Water and Sewer Systems.
§ 700.040 Unlawful to Place Garbage on Public or Private Property.
§ 700.050 Unlawful to Discharge Sewage to Any Natural Outlet.
§ 700.060 Private Sewage Disposal Prohibited.
§ 700.070 Occupied Buildings Must Have Toilet Facilities.
§ 700.100 Discharge of Storm Water, Drain Water, Etc., to Any Sanitary Sewer.
§ 700.110 Unpolluted Drainage Discharged to Storm Drain.
§ 700.120 Toxic Wastes Shall Not Be Discharged to Public Sewers.
§ 700.130 Substances That May Damage Sewage System.
§ 700.140 Director of Public Works' Authorities.
§ 700.150 Grease, Oil and Sand Interceptors — When.
§ 700.160 Preliminary Treatment at Owner's Expense.
§ 700.170 Manhole — When Required.
§ 700.180 Tests to Comply With "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater".
§ 700.200 Damaging Sewage Works.
§ 700.210 Authority to Enter Property to Inspect.
§ 700.220 Violation and Penalty.
§ 700.230 Must Connect to Water System.
§ 700.235 Private Water Wells Prohibited.
§ 700.240 Must Also Connect to Sewer System.
§ 700.260 Water Hookups and Fees.
§ 700.265 Multiple Residential and Commercial Unit Water Connection.
§ 700.270 Reconnection Fee for Delinquent Water Bills.
§ 700.280 Water Service Outside City Limits.
§ 700.295 Sewer and Water — Billing Frequency — Delinquent Bills.
§ 700.296 Failure to Pay Water and/or Sewer Service Charges.
§ 700.300 Purpose and Policy.
§ 700.330 User Charge Accounts.
§ 700.340 User Charge Rates.
§ 700.360 City to Review User Charge System.
Editor's Note — Ord. no. 2245-08 §1, adopted May 6, 2008, repealed ch. 700 and enacted the new provisions set out herein. Former ch. 700 derived from CC 1984 §§68.010 — 68.020, 68.300, 68.330, 68.500; ord. no. 893-82 §1, 11-2-1982; amended by ord. no. 973-84 §1, 7-3-1984; ord. no. 1053-85 §68.320, 9-3-1985; ord. no. 1254-89 Art. I §§1 — 22, 8-16-1989; ord. no. 1254-89 Art. II §§1 — 4, 8-16-1989; ord. no. 1254-89 Art. III §§1 — 8, 8-16-1989; ord. no. 1254-89 Art. IV §§1 — 11, 8-16-1989; ord. no. 1254-89 Art. V §§1 — 10, 8-16-1989; ord. no. 1254-89 Art.VI §1, 8-16-1989; ord. no. 1254-89 Art. VII §§1 — 3, 8-16-1989; ord. no. 1254-89 Art. VIII §§1 — 3, 8-16-1989; ord. no. 1287-90 §A, 3-20-1990; ord. no.1305-90 §§1 — 11, 6-5-1990; ord. no. 1320-90 §1, 9-4-1990; ord. no. 1325-90 §1, 9-4-1990; ord. no. 1326-90 §1, 9-4-1990; ord. no. 1368-91, 7-2-1991; ord. no. 1393 §1, 10-15-1991; ord. no. 1447-92 §1, 10-6-1992; ord. no. 1622-96 §1, 8-6-1996; ord. no. 1680-97 §1, 11-4-1997; ord. no. 1719-98 §1, 11-3-1998; ord. no. 1750-99 §1, 5-18-1999; ord. no. 1767-99 §1, 10-5-1999; ord. no. 1768-99 §1, 10-5-1999; ord. no. 1779-00 §1, 2-1-2000; ord. no. 1863-01 §1, 12-18-2001; ord. no. 1864-01 §1, 12-18-2001; ord. no. 1874-02 §1, 3-19-2002; ord. no. 1932-03 §1, 2-4-2003; ord. no. 1994-03 §1, 12-16-2003; ord. no. 1995-03 §1, 12-16-2003; ord. no. 2045-04 §1, 11-16-2004.
Section 700.025 Member of Notification Center.
Section 700.026 Cost of Connecting to Water and Sewer Systems.
Section 700.040 Unlawful to Place Garbage on Public or Private Property.
Section 700.050 Unlawful to Discharge Sewage to Any Natural Outlet.
Section 700.060 Private Sewage Disposal Prohibited.
Section 700.070 Occupied Buildings Must Have Toilet Facilities.
Section 700.100 Discharge of Storm Water, Drain Water, Etc., to Any Sanitary Sewer.
Section 700.110 Unpolluted Drainage Discharged to Storm Drain.
Section 700.120 Toxic Wastes Shall Not Be Discharged to Public Sewers.
Section 700.130 Substances That May Damage Sewage System.
Section 700.140 Director of Public Works' Authorities.
Section 700.150 Grease, Oil and Sand Interceptors — When.
Section 700.160 Preliminary Treatment at Owner's Expense.
Section 700.170 Manhole — When Required.
Section 700.180 Tests to Comply With "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater".
Section 700.200 Damaging Sewage Works.
Section 700.210 Authority to Enter Property to Inspect.
Section 700.220 Violation and Penalty.
Section 700.230 Must Connect to Water System.
Section 700.235 Private Water Wells Prohibited.
Section 700.240 Must Also Connect to Sewer System.
Section 700.260 Water Hookups and Fees.
Section 700.265 Multiple Residential and Commercial Unit Water Connection.
Section 700.270 Reconnection Fee for Delinquent Water Bills.
Section 700.280 Water Service Outside City Limits.
Section 700.295 Sewer and Water — Billing Frequency — Delinquent Bills.
Section 700.296 Failure to Pay Water and/or Sewer Service Charges.
Section 700.300 Purpose and Policy.
Section 700.330 User Charge Accounts.
Section 700.340 User Charge Rates.
Section 700.360 City to Review User Charge System.


Jessica currently serves as an Associate Professor of Graphic Design & Communications within the Visual Art & Design department at Salt Lake Community College. Her work at the college began in August 2011 when she relocated from her home state of New Jersey. She credits her undergraduate studies at California University of Pennsylvania for developing her passion for Graphic Communications. She holds a BS in Graphic Design (2006), MS in Graphic Communications Technology Management (2008), and a MFA in Media Design (2012). Her desire to support OPEN education initiatives began with sharing course content in house and has expanded to include the formatting and publication of course content on OpenGraphicArts.com and its associated Google Drive and YouTube accounts.
Jessica currently contributes to the course development of ART 1135 Printing Fundamentals, ART 1200 InDesign Software, ART 1210 Math for Visual Arts, ART 1280 Photoshop Software, ART 2120 eDesign & Publishing, ART 2200 Advanced InDesign Software, and ART 2140 Advanced Photoshop Software (coming soon). She enjoys collaborating with others. Contact her at Jessica.Curran@slcc.edu if you are interested in learning more about her courses and/or contributing to OpenGraphicArts.com.
Whitney is a Professor of Photography in the Visual Art & Design Department at Salt Lake Community College. She has lived in the Salt Lake area for most of her life and has been a devoted faculty member of the Visual Art & Design Department since 1998. Her education includes two baccalaureate degrees, a B.S. and B.F.A with emphasis in Photography from Weber State University, and an M.F.A in Photography from the Savannah College of Art & Design. Today, she strives to continue her education and experience with trends and techniques in photography and teaching.
The latest endeavor has been working with Jessica Curran developing curriculum and OER content for ART 1280 Photoshop Software. For Whitney, the excitement of teaching is being able to pass on to others the magic of the art. Photography can be a special, unique and expressive tool and used along with Photoshop, the possibilities are endless.
My name is Eric Dederding. I am an adjunct instructor at SLCC. I currently live in New Jersey, where I teach Digital Photography and Graphic Design at a local High School in addition to teaching for the college. Although I always wanted to be a teacher, I have only been teaching since 2017. I took a slight detour into the printing industry after I found out about some awesome college graphics courses at Kean University that led me to getting Bachelors of Science in Graphic Communications Technology Management and joining the printing industry. There I dabbled in estimating and worked mostly in print production and sales for about 11 years before having the opportunity to transition into teaching. I love being a teacher. I love the subject matter. It keeps my life and job more interesting.
On a more personal note, I am a big fan of the outdoors and going hiking and camping. I love taking my puppy on day trips in new places. I have a passion for taking photographs and documenting events and trips I take in a creative way. Technology is wonderful. I also enjoy old school board games along with game nights with my friends I've had since Kindergarten.
Eric teaches and contributes to the development of ART 1210 – Math for Visual Arts, ART 1280 – Photoshop Software, and ART 2120 – eDesign & Publishing.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown, Defendant - Appellant.
Sean Lamont Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Sean Lamont Dudley, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his self-styled "Motion to Correct Sentence Due to Intervening Change in Circuit Law[.]" In the motion, Dudley asserted he was entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), and alternatively, through a writ of audita querela, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012), or pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Having reviewed the record, we affirm the district court's denial of audita querela relief. See United States v. Dudley, Nos. 5:97-cr-00001-RLV-1, 5:14-cv-00073-RLV (W.D.N.C. June 10, 2014).
To the extent the district court dismissed Dudley's motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion, that portion of the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dudley has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.


text:
Latta, Estelle. Controversial Mark Hopkins. The Great Swindle of American History. Photo available. New York. Greenberg. 1963. 257 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. Revised edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Latta, F.F. Black Gold in the Joaquin. Inscribed by the author. Photo available. Caldwell. The Caxton Printers, Ltd. 1949. 344 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Inscribed by the author "For Pauline Glass 11-1-;72 F Latta". Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Latta, Frank. Death Valley '49ers. Photo available. Santa Cruz. Bear State Books. 1979. 4to. Gilt decorated hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Fine copy.
Laughlin, Ruth. Caballeros. Photo available. Caldwell. Caxton Printers. 1947. Octavo. Hardcover. Reprint. Illustrated by Norma van Swerigen. Fine copy.
Lauritzen, Jonreed. Captain Sutter's Gold. Garden City. Doubleday. 1964. Octavo. Hard cover. Fine copy.
Laval, Jerome. As "Pop" Saw It. Volume I. The Great Central Valley of California. As Seen Through the Lens of a Camera. Photo available. Fresno. Graphic Technology. 1975. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy.
Laval, Jerome. As "Pop" Saw It. Volume I. The Great Central Valley of California. As Seen Through the Lens of a Camera. Photo available. Fresno. Graphic Technology. 1975. 240 pps. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Fine (owner names on title page) copy in lightly edge chipped dust jacket (in mylar).
Lavender, David. California. A History. New York. Harper & Row. 1976. 245 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. Illustrated. Fine copy in near fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Lavender, David. Land of Giants. The Drive to the Pacific Northwest. 1750-1950. New York. Doubleday & Company. 1958. 468 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. Second edition. Fine copy (owner name on end paper) in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Lavender, David. Land of Giants. The Drive to the Pacific Northwest. 1750-1950. Photo available. New York. Doubleday & Company. 1958. 468 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. Stated first edition. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Lavender, David. Let Me Be Free. The Nez Perce Tragedy. The U.S. Army's War Against Seven Hundred Nez Perce Man, Women and Children. New York. Harper Collins. 1992. 403 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. Reprint. Fine copy in near fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Lavender, David. Snowbound. The Tragic Story of the Donner Party. Photo available. New York. Holiday House. 1996. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Lavender, David. Snowbound. The Tragic Story of the Donner Party. Photo available. New York. Holiday House. 1996. 87 pps. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Fine copy in near fine (very light shelf wear) dust jacket (in mylar).
Lavender, David. The Fist in the Wilderness. Albuquerque. University of New Mexico Press. 1979. 490 pps. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition thus. Fine copy.
Lavender, David. The Rockies. Lincoln. University of Nebraska Press. 1981. 404 pps. Octavo. Soft cover. Reprint. Illustrated. Fine copy.
Lavigne, David M. (ed). Gaining Ground: In Pursuit of Ecological Sustainability. Photo available. London. IFAW. International Fund for Animal Welfare. 2006. 425 pps. 4to. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Fine copy.
Lawliss, Chuck. Ghost Towns, Gamblers and Gold (Gold Rush). Photo available. New York. Gallery Books. 1985. 223 pps. 4to. Hardcover. Stated first edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Important reference work. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Lawson, Greg. Palm Springs Oasis (English, Spanish, French & German). A Greg Lawson Photographic Portfolio of the Cochella Valley Region. San Diego. First Choice Publishers. 1989. 71 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. Second edition. Beautiful color plates by the author. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Lawson, John. Redding & Shasta County. Gateway to the Cascades. An Illustrated History. Northridge. Windsor Pub. 1986. 184 pps. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
le Querrec, Guy. On the Trail to Wounded Knee. The Big Foot Memorial Ride. Guilford. Lyons Press. 2000. 4to. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Leadabrand, Russ. Yesterday's California. Photo available. Miami. E.A. Seemann. 1975. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in very good (light shelf wear) dust jacket (in mylar).

matches:
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine


Below are the latest issues and cases making trade secrets | noncompete news since our last update.
Remember that the Changing Trade Secrets | Noncompete Laws is updated regularly to reflect (in as close to real time as possible) the changes and proposed changes to trade secrets laws and noncompete laws around the country.
Also remember that charts reflecting the differences among how each of the 50 states handle noncompetes and trade secrets are available here (noncompetes) and here (trade secrets). Note that these charts are updated as new developments arise.
Federal (6th Circuit): On November 8, 2016, the 6th Circuit affirmed a jury verdict effectively imposing a perpetual noncompete in Bar’s Products Inc. v. Bars Products International, Inc., 2016 WL 6471760 (6th Cir. 2016). For more reading, see Jonathan Pollard‘s post, 6th Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict on Forever Non-Compete Under Ohio Law.
Only the first prong of the section is before us in this appeal: “knowingly and with intent to defraud” accessing a computer “without authorization.” Embracing our earlier precedent and joining our sister circuits, we conclude that “without authorization” is an unambiguous, non-technical term that, given its plain and ordinary meaning, means accessing a protected computer without permission. Further, we have held that authorization is not pegged to website terms and conditions. This definition has a simple corollary: once authorization to access a computer has been affirmatively revoked, the user cannot sidestep the statute by going through the back door and accessing the computer through a third party. Unequivocal revocation of computer access closes both the front door and the back door. This provision, coupled with the requirement that access be “knowingly and with intent to defraud,” means that the statute will not sweep in innocent conduct, such as family password sharing.
U.S. v. Nosal, 2016 WL 7190670, *2 (9th Cir. 2016).
The Court then summarized the issue as follows: “[W]e are asked to decide whether the “without authorization” prohibition of the CFAA extends to a former employee whose computer access credentials have been rescinded but who, disregarding the revocation, accesses the computer by other means.” Id.
Nosal is charged with conspiring with former Korn/Ferry employees whose user accounts had been terminated, but who nonetheless accessed trade secrets in a proprietary database through the back door when the front door had been firmly closed. Nosal knowingly and with intent to defraud Korn/Ferry blatantly circumvented the affirmative revocation of his computer system access. This access falls squarely within the CFAA’s prohibition on “knowingly and with intent to defraud” accessing a computer “without authorization,” and thus we affirm Nosal’s conviction for violations of § 1030(a)(4) of the CFAA.
This approach is also consistent with the Court’s other recent December 9 decision, Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 2016 WL 7190690 (9th Cir. 2016).
Federal (ITC): The ITC has increasingly become the venue of choice for certain trade secrets disputes. However, limited circumstantial evidence and resulting surmise may not be enough: Jawbone Fails to Prove Trade Secret Misappropriation by Fitbit at ITC.
Federal (Colorado): On December 2, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued an injunction in Engility Corp. v. Daniels under the newly-enacted Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. The case provides a very thorough analysis.
Federal (Missouri): On November 15, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Missouri issued a decision in Durrell v. Tech Electronics, Inc., in which the court held that continued employment is not sufficient consideration. Although citing to earlier decisions making clear that continued access to trade secrets or customer relationships, as well as other aspects of the continued employment, might provide the necessary consideration, the court dismissed the complaint focused only on the lack of consideration arising from continued employment. Hat tip to Bob Ortbals for identifying the case.
California: On October 18, 2016, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District, Division Four (Solano County), Robinson v. U-Haul Company of California affirmed a lower court decision imposing a permanent injunction and awarding substantial attorneys’ fees against U-Haul and in favor of a former U-Haul independent dealer. The basis for the Court’s decision was that noncompetes are illegal in California – even in a context such as this – and that U-Haul knowingly and repeatedly violated the law. Hat tip to Glenn Dassoff and Michelle Van Oppen for identifying this case and providing a link to the case (see above).
Indiana: On November 30, the Court of Appeals of Indiana addressed, in Hannum Wagle & Cline Engineering, Inc. v. American Consulting, Inc., some of the questions that frequently arise in cases involving noncompete agreements and nonsolicitation agreements, specifically, among others, what constitutes solicitation and how to handle tolling/extension provisions in restrictive covenants. Hat tip to John Drake for identifying this case.
Massachusetts: On December 6, 2016, the United States for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision in Unum Group v. Loftus rejecting the defendant’s efforts to dismiss a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act based on the whistleblower exception. See Whistleblower status nixed early in trade secrets case.
Pennsylvania: A recent case in Pennsylvania, B.G. Balmer & Co., Inc. v. Frank Crystal & Co., Inc., provides a cautionary tale for employees and their would-be employers where employees engage in a coordinated en masse resignation, violate their nonsolicitation covenants, use their former employer’s trade secret customer information, and are indemnified by the new employer. Hat tip to Martin Saunders for identifying this case.
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania has taken a step toward eliminating trade secret protection for certain fracking-related information: Fracking Fluid Dynamics: New Trade Secrets Movements.
David Lucas wrote a nice summary of the International Harmonization of Trade Secret Rights and Remedies, focusing on the timing and substance of the enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in May and the passage of the European Union Directive on the Protection of Trade Secrets in June.
The MIT Technology Review wrote an interesting piece on the perceived decline in Chinese hacking: The Decline in Chinese Cyberattacks: The Story Behind the Numbers.
David Henderson, a research fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and economics professor at the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, provided a nice summary of an example of why noncompete agreements are enforceable in certain circumstances: Why Non-Compete Agreements Make Sense.
CREATE.org issued a white paper on reasonable measures to protect trade secrets: The Importance of Cybersecurity for Trade Secret Protection.
Donal O’Connell provides some guidance for not boiling the ocean when it comes to… Establishing a trade secret culture – take baby steps.
The musch-reported use by Jimmy John’s of noncompetes for low-level employees came to a conclusion in early December with a settlement with the Illinois Attorney General in which Jimmy John’s paid $100,000.
The potential for conflicts of interest to arise in noncompete cases are manifold. See, for example, Metz Lewis Disqualified in Noncompete Case Against Ex-Client, involving an example of when a firm represents the employee on his way in, but later tries to represent the employer on the employee’s way out.
Ken Vanko, who always has a very thoughtful analysis of the topics he discusses, has a nice piece on the legislative efforts at noncompete reform: A Response to the Jackson Lewis White Paper on Non-Compete Reform.
Eric Ostroff wrote a nice piece on the Wake Forest football trade secret debacle: Trade Secrets Lessons from WakeyLeaks.
Erik W. Weibust and Andrew T. Stark wrote a nice piece on a regulation proposed by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission that would allow the CFTC to obtain trading firm’s algorithms.
Terrific advice on law firm security: Client Data Security Obligations Begin With the Law Firm. For more (on insurance-related issues), see Law firms playing catchup covering cybersecurity risks. And, on the subject of keeping what matters in perspective, see Cybersecurity Madness: 3 Things that Really Matter and 3 That Don’t.
Ropes & Gray recently posted on the growing pool of potential defendants in the cybersecurity breaches: Recent Decisions Highlight Legal Risks Associated with Product Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities.
Fish & Richardson released some interesting results of a survey on cybersecurity.


text:
This project has received funding from the European Union’s H2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement N 820677.
In the case of explicit and optional manifestation of consent, the data collected for the purposes pursuant to paragraph a) shall also be processed for the purposes of direct marketing by the Data Controller, especially for sending informatory, commercial or advertising material about the services and/or products offered by the Company, also via email, sms, fax and other instant, or not, messaging tools which may also operate on third party platforms. The data shall be processed lawfully and correctly and only used for the purposes pursuant to the paragraphs hereabove. Processing shall take place using tools suited to guaranteeing the security and confidentiality of the personal data and may take place using paper based means and/or automated and computerised tools aimed at storing, managing and transmitting such data.
The provision of personal data is mandatory exclusively for the purposes pursuant to art. 2, paragraph a) so as to allow the use of the website and services associated and requested by the user, possibly subject to disclosure for each service issued as established by law. Your refusal shall make the use of such services impossible. However it shall be possible to consult the website without providing any personal data although some functions shall not be available and some services cannot be supplied. The provision of the data and giving consent for the related processing for the purposes pursuant to art. 2, paragraph b), is optional: without explicit consent such services shall not be provided. However, there are no other consequences. If you do not wish to give your consent for such purposes you may equally use the website and services for the purposes pursuant to art. 2, paragraph a). In other words, the consequences of a refusal to respond or give consent are always explicit and connected to each provided service. For example, in the event of refusing the related processing, the consultation of the website and all its functions (in the case of cookies), receiving the newsletter (in the case of the newsletter service) or receipt of advertising material (in the case of art. 2 paragraph b) may be impeded. The user is thereby informed in an appropriate manner for each concrete case, but may, in any case, consult the website even if he/she denies consent for processing personal data where requested: in this event such functions and features of the website could be disabled.
Processing associated to the web services pursuant to this website is performed at the seat of Studio Three-Sixtieth, Via Cà Dè Lolli nr.105, Marano sul Panaro, 41054, Modena – Italy , without prejudice to explicit exceptions, and it is only overseen by the technical staff of the Company expressly assigned to processing. The website hosting service is provided by Studio Three-Sixtieth,. at the servers owned by the latter kept within the farm of Register S.p.A. in Italy, which guarantees the Data Controller, inasmuch as of its competence, the observance of the normative in force on the matter of processing personal data.
Different types of personal data can be processed depending on the provided service, as specified in this article.
The computer systems and software procedures for the operation of this website acquire some personal data during the course of their normal running, the transmission of which is implicit when navigating websites. This information is not collected in order to be associated with identified interests: nonetheless given its nature it could allow users to be identified through processing and association with data held by third parties. The latter include IP addresses or the domain names of the computers used by users connecting to the website, URL addresses of the requested resources, the time of the request, the method used to submit the request to the server, the size of the file obtained in response, the number code indicating the status of the response given by the server and other parameters related to the operating system and the platform utilised by the user. The data pursuant to the above are only used in order to obtain anonymous statistical information about the use of the site and in order to control the correct operation thereof: they are deleted immediately after processing. The data could be used for ascertaining responsibility in the case of hypothetical cyber crimes to the damage of the website: without prejudice to such possibility, at the current time data on web contact do not persist for more than seven days. See section 5.4 below in relation to cookies.
Optional, explicit and voluntary provision of communications through contact forms on the website or emails to the addresses given in this website lead to the subsequent acquisition of the data provided by the sender, including their email address and consent to receive any messages in response to their requests. The personal data thus provided are only used to satisfy or respond to the transmitted requests and are only communicated to third parties in the case that this is necessary for such purpose. Specific explanatory documents drawn up for special services on demand shall be shown in the related pages of the website.
Each data subject may voluntarily provide their personal data to CRIT S.r.l. in order to receive commercial or promotional communications, howsoever called, with digital and paper based communications. In the sole case in which the email details are given by the data subject in the context of selling a product or service can the email address thus provided be used for the direct sale of other similar products or services, pursuant to EU Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) and legislative decree 196/2003 (Code on the matter of the protection of personal data, so-called “Privacy Code”), without the necessity for express and prior consent. In any case, the data subject is reminded in every communication that they can revoke consent at any time and without formality. The data are deleted upon request of the data subject.
The data provided shall be retained for the periods prescribed by legal norms and, in any case, for the time strictly necessary to pursue the activities for which they were collected and/or until revocation of the consent given for the purposes pursuant to art. 2, paragraph b).
Nonetheless, the collected data shall be retained for no longer than twenty-four months for the marketing purposes pursuant to art. 2 paragraph b) (without prejudice to any amendments and/or supplements to the normative of reference on the matter of protecting personal data which shall be expressly communicated therein).
Personal data shall be protected from the risks of destruction, access by unauthorised parties and use for purposes other than those for which consent was given.
The data acquired via web or in any case originating from web services, may be communicated to technological and instrumental partners of which the Data Controller avails to issue the services requested by users/visitors, provided that in observance of the purposes indicated in art. 2.
The data collected for the foregoing purposes may also be communicated to companies that are associated or belong to the same corporate group of the Data Controller, as well as subjects authorised for such purpose by legal and European regulatory provisions.
The data subject is the identified or identifiable natural person to whom the personal data subject matter of processing refer.
We inform you that in your capacity as data subject, you are granted the right to access the data concerning you at any time, processed by the Data Controller (right of access) so that you may verify that they are correct and verify the lawfulness of the completed processing. You may also exercise all the rights granted by the normative in force, national and European, regarding the protection of personal data (by legislative decree 196/2003 and by EU regulation no. 2016/679 as amended): in particular, you may request correction and updating of incorrect or imprecise data at any time, you may also restrict processing and request the cancellation of data (right to be forgotten), and also lodge a complaint to the Supervisory Authority for the protection of personal data.
With reference to the personal data processed using automated means, lastly, you are granted the right to receive the data concerning you in a structured and commonly used format, as well as sending them, where applicable, to another data controller (right to data portability).
So as to allow CRIT S.r.l to best serve its users, the latter are invited to update their personal data on a regular basis.
Each data subject is also granted the right to revoke conferred consent at any time, without prejudice to the lawfulness of the processing carried out by the Data Controller before such revocation. Data subjects are also granted the possibility to object to processing data concerning them when this has been carried out for direct marketing purposes as pursuant to art. 2, paragraph b; in this case your data shall no longer be subjected to processing for such purposes (right to object).
This Website addresses the generic public, nonetheless its services are intended for persons who are 18 years old or older. CRIT S.r.l. does not request, collect, use or divulge personal data provided by persons younger than 18 on a deliberate basis. If CRIT S.r.l. realises that it has personally collected data from a minor it shall erase them.
If a user is not of the required age they are kindly asked not to register and to ask an adult (namely their parents or guardian) to carry out the necessary procedures.
We specify that pursuant to art. 8 of the European Regulation, where article 6, paragraph 1, letter a) applies, as regards the direct offer of information services to minors, the processing of the minor’s personal data is lawful when the minor is at least 16 years old.
CRIT S.r.l. implemented measures suited to protecting the user’s personal data from accidental loss and unauthorised access, use, modification and disclosure. Password checks, firewall technology and other technological and procedure based security measures are used in the management of this website. Despite the fact that CRIT S.r.l. implemented the aforementioned security measures for the Website, the user should be aware that it is not possible to guarantee 100% security. Therefore the user provides their personal data at their own risk and to the maximum extent permitted by the law in force, CRIT S.r.l. shall not be liable in any way whatsoever for their disclosure due to errors, omissions or unauthorised actions by third parties during or after their transmission to the latter. CRIT S.r.l. advises the user to periodically update software to protect the transmission of data on networks (antivirus software for example) and to check that the electronic communication service provider has adopted means suited to safe transmission of data on the networks (firewalls and junk mail filters for example); to keep their user name and password to access the account confidential and not divulge them; and to periodically change their password.
In the unlikely event that CRIT S.r.l. deems that the security of the user’s personal data in its possession or under its control has been or could have been jeopardised, it shall inform the user thereof according to the procedures provided by the law in force and using the method prescribed therein (in providing CRIT S.r.l. with their email address, the user accepts receipt of such communications in electronic format via such email address).
Technical cookies (first party): these are essential for the correct function and display of the website as well as memorising the user’s consent for using the cookies, (duration: 12 months).
First party cookies: exclusively technical cookies are used for the correct function and display of the website, the purpose of which is to memorise the user’s consent to using the cookies.
What are they? Cookies are elements of information stored through the browser when a website is visited using any suitable device (such as a PC, tablet or smartphone).
Each cookie contains different data (e.g. the name of the server from which it originates, a numeric identifier, etc.), it can remain in the system for the duration of one session (until the browser is closed) or for longer periods and it can contain a unique identification code.
What are they for? Cookies are used for various purposes according to their typology: some are strictly necessary for a website to function correctly (technical cookies), whereas other optimise performance to offer the user a better experience or allow statistics about the use of the website to be acquired, such as analytics cookies.
How can they be disabled? Cookies can be disabled both through the browser setup (section 5.4.4. “How are cookies disabled?”) and through the mechanisms available from certain third parties (section 5.4.3. “Cookies used in the website”).
Technical cookies (third party): these are essential for the correct function and display of the photos contained therein, in order to indicate user authentication, verify whether the client’s browser accepts the cookies or not and for the site to be used by the administrator by means of a third party service.
Analytics cookies (third party): these are used for the purposes of aggregated analyses of the visits to the website by means of recourse to a third party service.
5.3.4. How are cookies disabled?
Control through browsers: commonly used browsers (e.g. Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari) accept cookies as a default setup, however such setup can be modified by the user at any time. This also applies to PCs and mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones: it is a generally and diffusely supported function. It is therefore easy to deactivate or disable cookies by accessing the options or preferences of the used browser and it is also generally possible to only block third party cookies; as a rule such options are only effective for that browser or device unless options are active for unifying the preferences on different devices. Specific instructions can be found in the options or the help page of such browser. Disabling technical cookies, however, can affect the full and/or correct function of various websites, including this website.
- allow stored cookies to be fully or partly deleted, however they are usually installed on the next visit to a website if such possibility has not been blocked.
Third party cookies: third party cookies can be disabled both using the method described above and referring to each third party (by following the links indicated in the previous section).
The data subject can enforce the rights pursuant to art. 13 et seq. of EU Regulation no. 679/2016 at any time by contacting the Data Controller by sending an email to info@iqonic-h2020.eu.

matches:
art. 2
art. 2
art. 2
art. 2
art. 2
art. 2
art. 2
art. 2
art. 8
art. 13


text:
The possibility that the remainder may never take effect in possession is immaterial in determining whether it is vested or contingent, not only when, as above explained, this possibility arises from the character of the particular estate or of that in remainder, but also when it arises from the fact that the remainder may be divested by the exercise of a power of appointment.83 And so the existence of an executory limitation over in favor of another person84 does not render the remainder upon an estate tail is necessarily contingent, are, it is submitted, unsound on principle.
82a. The present writer cannot agree with Professor Gray's view (Perpetuities, Sec. 111) that a remainder on an estate in fee tail is vested because "the barring of the estates by the tenant in tail is considered in the nature of a condition subsequent divesting the whole series of estates," but he entirely agrees with that scholar's criticism of the reason given in Smith's Executory Interests, Sec. 192, "that a failure of issue is considered certain to happen some time or other." Whether a remainder upon an estate tail, as upon any other particular estate, is vested or contingent, depends on whether it is subject to a condition precedent or is in favor of uncertain persons. Any assumption that every such remainder is vested is, it is submitted, as erroneous as the assumption that no such remainder is vested.
II N. E. 762; Buckner v. Buckner, 255 Mo. 371, 164 S. W. 513; Burleigh v. Clough, 52 N. H. 267, 13 Am. Rep. 23; Sandford v. Blake, 45 N. J. Eq. 247; Van Axte v. Fisher, 117 N. Y. 401, 22 N. E. 943; Caples v. Ward, 107 Tex. 341, 179 S. W. 856; Lantz v. Massie, 99 Va. 709, 40 S. E. 40; Hare v. Congregational Society, 76 Vt. 362, 57 Atl. 964; Fearne's Cont. Rem. 226 et seq. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec. 112.
146 Ind. 227, 45 N. B. 101; Cal-lison v. Morris, 123 Iowa, 297, 98 N. W. 780; Watson v. Cressey, 79 Me. 381, 10 Atl. 59; Marshall v. Safe Deposit etc. Co. 101 Med. 1, 60 Atl. 476; Kelso v. Lorillard, 85 N. Y. 177; Lee v. Oates, 171 N. Car. 717, 88 S. E. 889.
85. Gray, Perpetuities, Sec.Sec. 104-108; Sumpter v. Carter, 115 Ga. 893, 42 S. E. 324, 60 L. R. A. 274; Ducker v. Burnham, 146 111. 9, 34 N. E. 558, 37 Am. St. Rep. 135; Remmers v. Remmers, 280 111. 93, 117 N. E. 474; Aldred v. Sylvester, 184 Ind. 542, 111 N. E. 914; Mercantile Bank v. Ballard, 83 Ky.
481, 4 Am. St. Rep. 160; Forsythe v. Lansing, 109 Ky. 518, 59 S. W. 854; Robinson v. Palmer, 90 Me. 246, 38 Atl. 103; Clark v. Cox, 115 N. Car. 93, 20 S. E. 176 In re Neel's Estate, 252 Pa. 394, 9 Atl. 502; Walker v. Alverson, 87 S. Car. 55, 68 S. E. 966; Caples v. Ward, 107 Tex. 341, 179 S. W. 856.
86. Blanchard v. Blanchard, 1 Allen (Mass.) 223; Jeffers v. Lampson, 10 Ohio St. 101; Collins v. Collins, 40 Ohio. St. 353; Harrison v. Foreman, 5 Ves. Jr. 207.
87. Olney v. Hull, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 311; Thomson v. Luding-ton, 104 Mass. 193; Robinson v.
Palmer, 90 Me. 246; Smith v. Block, 29 Ohio St. 488; Whitesides v Cooper, 115 N. C. 570.
1 Allen (Mass.) 223; Kemp v. Bradford, 61 Md. 330.
89. Whitesides v. Cooper, .115 N. Car. 570, 20 S. E. 295.
Fla.. 473; Hoover v. Hoover. 116 Ind. 498; Archer v. Jacobs, 125 Iowa 467, 101 N. W. 195; Bowling v. Dobyns, 5 Dana (Ky.) 442; Brown v. Lawrence, 3 Cush. 390; Schuyler v. Hanna, 31 Neb. 307; Ken-nard v. Kennard, 63 N. H. 303; Bentley v. Long, 1 Strobb Eq. 43, 47 Am. Dec. 523; Bufford v. Hal-liman, 10 Tex. 572, 60 Am. Dec. 223; Lantz v. Massie, 99 Va. 709, 40 S. E. 50.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


A Practical Guide to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Claim Submission Procedures George M. Chalos – Chalos& Co, P.C.
However, as stated above, under OPA § 2708, an RP may assert a claim to the OSLTF only if it can demonstrate its entitlement to a defense or limitation of liability under OPA.15 In fact, this is the first step which an RP must successfully complete before the NPFC will proceed with the review of any claim.
When presenting a claim to the OSLTF, each claimant has the burden of proving its entitlement to receive compensation. When presenting a claim on behalf of an RP, the RP is responsible for demonstrating its defenses and right to limitation of liability. Ostensibly, the RP must affirmatively prove that the spill was not caused by its own gross negligence. In meeting this burden, the RP can rely on the Coast Guard investigative findings, judicial determinations, and any other evidence the RP wishes to submit.
Difficulty may arise if the Coast Guard investigation report is delayed. The bureaucratic nature of the Coast Guard infrastructure tends to lend itself to requiring a substantial amount of time and internal review before the final findings are available. This may create an obstacle for a party proving its entitlement for further review of its claim.
While the NPFC provides an initial claim form for presenting a claim to the NPFC, there is no prescribed format for presenting a claim against the OSLTF. The claim regulations provide some guidance as to the content of general claim submissions.89 A claim submission must be a signed written document with a sum certain stated. In addition to identifying the date, time, place of incident, and identity of claimant, the claim submission must contain a statement certifying that all material facts are included therein and are accurate.
In providing factual narratives and other evidence as part of the claim process, the claimant must be very careful in selecting what statements to make. Such statements may be used as admissions in third-party litigation or by the Coast Guard to supplement its own findings.
The NPFC review process can be painstakingly slow, as undertaking such a review is a complex and tedious task. Once a claimant has demonstrated its entitlement for claim submission, an NPFC Claims Adjuster must review each and every item on each and every document submitted. In order to facilitate review and processing, a neat, detailed, and organized claim is necessary. The use of summary sheets and spreadsheet software is recommended. Summaries are useful as guides for reviewing supporting documentation such as invoices and daily job reports. Additionally, backup or supporting documentation segregated in binders for each spill responder or contractor with clear delineation of sub-contractor support, documents, and invoices is also recommended.
The neater and more organized a claim, the more likely it will be reviewed and adjusted “in-house” by the NPFC. A claimant may present summary spreadsheets by hard copy or on computer diskette, utilizing any major spreadsheet applications. Presenting a claim in this manner not only saves the NPFC time by way of facilitating its claim review process, but also may speed up the claim determination process, saving the claimant time and money. Haphazard submissions may result in unnecessary delay in the processing of a claim.
Some problems can arise, even when a neat and organized claim has been submitted. The NPFC Claims Adjuster will necessarily review each and every item on all invoices. Thorough review often reveals problems inherent in the supporting documentation. Due to the chaotic nature of an oil spill response, support documents, including sign-in logs or daily reports, are often missing or incomplete. Illegible documents and inconsistent subcontractor documents are problematic. Computation and transcription problems may become evident in summaries or support documents. Other discrepancies may occur when a response contractor’s notes are inconsistent, missing, or otherwise objectionable to the NPFC Claims Adjuster.
The government, in an effort to pay what it deems to be an appropriate rate, will attempt to pay Basic Ordering Agreement (“BOA”) rates rather than the contractor’s actual response rate. However, in evaluating a claim, the government may allow for some reasonable mark-ups. In reviewing claims including overtime payments, “overtime” is generally considered only after the eight hours per day and forty hours per week threshold has been surpassed. New policy directives may be issued in the near future, providing better guidance.
The relevant guidelines and regulations for presenting a claim against the OSLTF are clearly set forth in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. However, despite such legislation and the fact that OPA and the NPFC have been in existence for nearly a decade, the case law precedent concerning what is or is not a valid claim on behalf of an RP is scarce. In this author’s opinion, the claims process and its controlling legislation is well drafted, however, the without the supplementation of court interpretations, specific guidance is lacking.
There is a scarcity of case law interpreting the provisions of OPA, specifically section 2704, and case law defining when an RP has a limited liability entitlement. As discussed above, an RP must demonstrate its entitlement to a limitation of liability prior to the NPFC undertaking the task of further review of any claim presented. However, from the current precedent available and the statutory legislative history, it seems clear that only a finding of gross negligence or willful misconduct will defeat the assertion of a limitation of liability under OPA § 2704.
The National Shipping decision does not elaborate on the distinction between ordinary negligence and the requisite level of gross negligence or recklessness required before an RP would otherwise be denied its right to limit its liability pursuant to OPA § 2704, although it has been successfully argued to the NPFC that the only reasonable reading of the language of the governing statute and the court’s decision in National Shipping must recognize that in order for section 2704(c)(1)(a) to apply, there must be a finding of something significantly more than mere carelessness or ordinary negligence.
Based upon the foregoing, it has been our position and contention that Congress envisioned a high standard of negligence when it ultimately enacted the final version of OPA. However, there has been no case law upon which to concretely rest such assertion. While it seems to be the clear and logical conclusion drawn from the legislative history and the case law most closely related, this author looks forward to the day when the issue of what constitutes mere negligence and what constitutes gross negligence in an oil pollution incident is decided. Accordingly, when such bright line distinctions are available, an RP may have some guidance and authority to rely upon in presenting its claims for reimbursement to the NPFC, and will not have to defer solely to the NPFC Director’s learned discretion.
For more information of presenting a claim to the NPFC, please contact George M. Chalos at gmc@chaloslaw.com.
. National Pollution Funds Center, User Reference Guide 569 (1999).
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.1(a)(1) (1998).
. 33 U.S.C. § 2713 (1994).
. 26 U.S.C. § 9509 (1994).
. 33 U.S.C. § 2708(a) (1994).
. 33 U.S.C. § 2703(a) (1994).
. 33 U.S.C. § 2704(c)(1) (1994).
. 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b) (1994).
. 33 U.S.C. § 2704(a)(1)-(2) (1994).
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.105(a) (1998).
. See 33 U.S.C. § 2712(h) (1994); 33 C.F.R. § 136.101 (1998).
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.101(a) (1998).
. 33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(1) (1994); 33 C.F.R. § 136.101(a)(2) (1998).
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.101(a)(2) (1998).
. 33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(2) (1994); 33 C.F.R. § 136.101(a)(1)(i) (1998).
. 33 C.F.R. 136.101(a)(1)(ii) (1998).
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.201 (1998).
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.211(a) (1998).
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.217(b) (1998).
. See §§ 136.219; 136.221; 136.223; 136.225.
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.219(b) (1998).
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.227(a) (1998).
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.231(c) (1998).
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.241 (1998).
. National Pollution Funds Center, supra note 2, at 579-80.
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.115(a) (1998).
. 33 C.F.R. § 136.115(d) (1998).
. The jurisdiction of the relevant district court rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994) (which deals with issues of federal question); 33 U.S.C. § 2717(b) (1994) (original jurisdiction granted under the Oil Pollution Act); and section 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1994).
. 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1994).
. International Marine v. Oil Spill Liab. Trust Fund,903 F. Supp. 1097, 1102 n.3 (S.D. Tex. 1994).
. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (1994).
. Gatlin Oil Co. v. United States,169 F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 1999).
. Gatlin Oil, 169 F.3d at 210.
. Id. (citing 33 C.F.R. §§ 136.205 and 136.235, providing for the type of compensation allowable under these regulations).
. Based on the experience of The Chalos Law Firm, LLC in presenting claims against the OSLTF and the NPFC, this section is intended as a summary of experience and suggestions which may prove useful to others in presenting claims to the NPFC.
. See 33 C.F.R. §§ 136.105-136.113 (1998).
. National Shipping Co. v. Moran Mid-Atlantic Corp.,924 F. Supp. 1436 (E.D. Va. 1996), aff’g, 1998 A.M.C. 163 (4th Cir. 1997).
. Id. (citing Benedict on Admiralty § 3.02[B] (7th ed. 1995)).
. 135 Cong. Rec. H 8120, 8134 (1989) (statement of Mr. Carper).
. 135 Cong. Rec. H 8157, 8157(1989).
. Id. at H 8165.
Previous PostPrevious Good Faith, Bad Faith Issues Between Insureds / Additional Insureds and Their Insurers By George M. Chalos Esq.


text:
Pe’er, G., Matsinos Y. G., Johst K., Franz K. W., Turlure C., Radchuk V., Malinowska A. H., Curtis J. M. R., Naujokaitis-Lewis I., Wintle B. A., Henle K.
Author(s): Pe’er, G., Matsinos Y. G., Johst K., Franz K. W., Turlure C., Radchuk V., Malinowska A. H., Curtis J. M. R., Naujokaitis-Lewis I., Wintle B. A., Henle K.
"Mind the gap!" - How well does Natura 2000 cover species of European interest?
Gruber B., Evans D., Henle K., Bauch B., Schmeller D.S. , Dziock F., Henry P.-Y., Lengyel S., Margules C., Dormann C.F.
Author(s): Gruber B., Evans D., Henle K., Bauch B., Schmeller D.S. , Dziock F., Henry P.-Y., Lengyel S., Margules C., Dormann C.F.
Šizling, A.L., Pokorný, P., Juřičková, L., Horáčková, J. Abraham, V. Šizlingová, E., Ložek, V. & Kunin, W.
Author(s): Šizling, A.L., Pokorný, P., Juřičková, L., Horáčková, J. Abraham, V. Šizlingová, E., Ložek, V. & Kunin, W.
Stevens, V., Turlure, C., Baguette, M.
Author(s): Stevens, V., Turlure, C., Baguette, M.
Radzevičiūtė R., Budrienė A., Budrys E., Orlovskytė S., Turčinavičienė J.
Author(s): Radzevičiūtė R., Budrienė A., Budrys E., Orlovskytė S., Turčinavičienė J.
Author(s): Sardà-Palomera F., Brotons L.
Bullock James M.; Mallada Gonzalez Laura; Tamme Riin; Götzenberger Lars; White Steven M.; Pärtel Meelis; Hooftman Danny A.P.
http://onlineli brary.wiley.com /doi/10.1111/13 65-2745.12666/a bstract?
Author(s): Bullock James M.; Mallada Gonzalez Laura; Tamme Riin; Götzenberger Lars; White Steven M.; Pärtel Meelis; Hooftman Danny A.P.
Accounting for the capacity of common and rare species to contribute to diversity spatial patterns: is it a sampling issue or a biological effect?
Mazaris, A.D., Tsianou, M.A., Sigkounas, A., Dimopoulos, P., Pantis, J.D., Sgardelis, S.P., Kallimanis, A.S.
Author(s): Mazaris, A.D., Tsianou, M.A., Sigkounas, A., Dimopoulos, P., Pantis, J.D., Sgardelis, S.P., Kallimanis, A.S.
Title: Accounting for the capacity of common and rare species to contribute to diversity spatial patterns: is it a sampling issue or a biological effect?
Budrys, E. & Budrienė, A.
Author(s): Budrys, E. & Budrienė, A.
Cianfrani C., Le Lay G., Maiorano L., Satizábal H. F., Loy A., Guisan A.
Author(s): Cianfrani C., Le Lay G., Maiorano L., Satizábal H. F., Loy A., Guisan A.
Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., Mathevet, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Tzanopoulos, J., Ring, I., Kettunen, M., Similä, J., Cent, J., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Koellner, T., Antunes, P., Pantis, J., Potts, S.G., Santos, R.
Author(s): Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., Mathevet, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Tzanopoulos, J., Ring, I., Kettunen, M., Similä, J., Cent, J., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Koellner, T., Antunes, P., Pantis, J., Potts, S.G., Santos, R.
Davison J, Öpik M, Daniell TJ, Moora M, Zobel M.
Author(s): Davison J, Öpik M, Daniell TJ, Moora M, Zobel M.
Borgström, S. and Similä, J.
Author(s): Borgström, S. and Similä, J.
Pellissier V, Touroult J, Julliard R, Siblet J-P, Jiguet F.
Author(s): Pellissier V, Touroult J, Julliard R, Siblet J-P, Jiguet F.
Marini L., Bertolli A., Bona E., Federici G., Martini F., Prosser F., Bommarco R.
Author(s): Marini L., Bertolli A., Bona E., Federici G., Martini F., Prosser F., Bommarco R.
Koivulehto M., Paloniemi R., Rantala M.
Author(s): Koivulehto M., Paloniemi R., Rantala M.
Keil, P., Biesmeijer, J.C., Barendregt, A., Reemer, M., Kunin, W.
Author(s): Keil, P., Biesmeijer, J.C., Barendregt, A., Reemer, M., Kunin, W.
Schmeller D.S. , Henle K., Loyau A., Besnard A., Henry P-Y.
Author(s): Schmeller D.S. , Henle K., Loyau A., Besnard A., Henry P-Y.
Lagarde, F., Louzizi, T., Slimani, T., El Mouden, H., Ben Kaddour, K., Moulherat, S., Bonnet, X.
Author(s): Lagarde, F., Louzizi, T., Slimani, T., El Mouden, H., Ben Kaddour, K., Moulherat, S., Bonnet, X.
Nowicki P., Vrabec V., Binzenhöfer B., Feil J., Zakšek B., Hovestadt T., Settele J.
Author(s): Nowicki P., Vrabec V., Binzenhöfer B., Feil J., Zakšek B., Hovestadt T., Settele J.
Can coarse-grain patterns in insect atlas data predict local occupancy?
Can public participation increase nature conservation effectiveness?
Author(s): Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Cent J.
Title: Can public participation increase nature conservation effectiveness?
Can we predict the number of plant species from the richness of a few common genera, families or orders?
Mazaris, A.D., Kallimanis, A.S., Tzanopoulos, J. Sgardelis, S.P., Pantis, J.D.
Author(s): Mazaris, A.D., Kallimanis, A.S., Tzanopoulos, J. Sgardelis, S.P., Pantis, J.D.
Leingärtner, A., Hoiss, B., Krauss, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I.
Author(s): Leingärtner, A., Hoiss, B., Krauss, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I.
Haila Y., Henle K., ApostolopoulouE., Cent J., Framstad E., Görg C., Jax K., Klenke R., Magnusson W.E., Matsinos Y., Müller B., Paloniemi R., Pantis J., Rauschmayer F., Ring I., Settele J., Similä J., Touloumis K., Tzanopoulos J., Pe\'er G.
Author(s): Haila Y., Henle K., ApostolopoulouE., Cent J., Framstad E., Görg C., Jax K., Klenke R., Magnusson W.E., Matsinos Y., Müller B., Paloniemi R., Pantis J., Rauschmayer F., Ring I., Settele J., Similä J., Touloumis K., Tzanopoulos J., Pe\'er G.
Papanikolaou, A.D., Kallimanis,A.S., Leshten, V., Pe’er, G., Henle, K., Pantis, J.D., Mazaris, A.D.
Author(s): Papanikolaou, A.D., Kallimanis,A.S., Leshten, V., Pe’er, G., Henle, K., Pantis, J.D., Mazaris, A.D.
Arenas, M., Ray, N., Currat, M., Excoffier, L.
Author(s): Arenas, M., Ray, N., Currat, M., Excoffier, L.
Vallecillo S, Hermoso V, Possingham H, Brotons L.
Author(s): Vallecillo S, Hermoso V, Possingham H, Brotons L.
Arponen A, Cabeza M, Eklund J, Kujala H, Lehtomäki J.
Author(s): Arponen A, Cabeza M, Eklund J, Kujala H, Lehtomäki J.
Krauss, J., Gallenberger, I., Steffan-Dewenter, I.
Author(s): Krauss, J., Gallenberger, I., Steffan-Dewenter, I.
Author(s): Borg, R., Paloniemi, R.
Giraud, C., Julliard, R., Porcher, E.
Author(s): Giraud, C., Julliard, R., Porcher, E.
evictor, V., van Swaay, C., Brereton, T., Brotons, L., Chamberlain, D., Heliölä, J., Herrando, S., Julliard, R., Kuussaari, M., Lindström, Å., Reif, J., Roy, D., van Strien, A., Settele, J., Schweiger, O., Stefanescu, C., Vermouzek, Z., van Turnhout, C., Wallis de Vries, M. & Jiguet, F.
Author(s): evictor, V., van Swaay, C., Brereton, T., Brotons, L., Chamberlain, D., Heliölä, J., Herrando, S., Julliard, R., Kuussaari, M., Lindström, Å., Reif, J., Roy, D., van Strien, A., Settele, J., Schweiger, O., Stefanescu, C., Vermouzek, Z., van Turnhout, C., Wallis de Vries, M. & Jiguet, F.
Marini, L., Bommarco, R., Fontana, P., Battisti, A.
Author(s): Marini, L., Bommarco, R., Fontana, P., Battisti, A.
Travis, J.M.J., Delgado M., Bocedi G., Baguette M., Barton K., Bonte D., Boulangeat I., Hodgson J.A., Kubisch A., Penteriani V., Saastamoinen M., Stevens V.M., Bullock J.M.
Author(s): Travis, J.M.J., Delgado M., Bocedi G., Baguette M., Barton K., Bonte D., Boulangeat I., Hodgson J.A., Kubisch A., Penteriani V., Saastamoinen M., Stevens V.M., Bullock J.M.
Delattre, T., Burel, F., Humeau, A., Stevens, V.M., Vernon, Ph., Baguette, M.
Author(s): Delattre, T., Burel, F., Humeau, A., Stevens, V.M., Vernon, Ph., Baguette, M.
Pöyry, J., Heikkinen, R. K., Heliölä, J., Kuussaari, M. & Saarinen, K.
Author(s): Pöyry, J., Heikkinen, R. K., Heliölä, J., Kuussaari, M. & Saarinen, K.
Do all inter-patch movements represent dispersal? A mixed kernel study of butterfly mobility in fragmented landscapes.
Hovestadt, T., Binzenhöfer, B., Nowicki, P., Settele, J.
Author(s): Hovestadt, T., Binzenhöfer, B., Nowicki, P., Settele, J.
Does the interpolation accuracy of species distribution models come at the expense of transferability?
Heikkinen, R.K., Marmion, M. & Luoto, M.
Author(s): Heikkinen, R.K., Marmion, M. & Luoto, M.
Title: Does the interpolation accuracy of species distribution models come at the expense of transferability?
van Swaay, C., Collins, S., Dušej, G., Maes, D., Munguira, M.L., Rakosy, L., Ryrholm, N., Šašić, M., Settele, J., Thomas, J., Verovnik, R., Verstrael, T., Warren, M., Wiemers, M., Wynhoff, I.
Author(s): van Swaay, C., Collins, S., Dušej, G., Maes, D., Munguira, M.L., Rakosy, L., Ryrholm, N., Šašić, M., Settele, J., Thomas, J., Verovnik, R., Verstrael, T., Warren, M., Wiemers, M., Wynhoff, I.
Azaele S., Cornell S., Kunin W.
Author(s): Azaele S., Cornell S., Kunin W.
Scott, A.V., Mazaris, A.D., Tzanopoulos, J. and Potts, S.G.
Author(s): Scott, A.V., Mazaris, A.D., Tzanopoulos, J. and Potts, S.G.
Gotzenberger, L., de Bello, F., Brathen, K. A., Davison, J., Dubuis, A., Guisan, A., Leps, J., Lindborg, R., Moora, M., Partel, M., Pellissier, L., Pottier, J., Vittoz, P., Zobel, K. & Zobel, M.
Author(s): Gotzenberger, L., de Bello, F., Brathen, K. A., Davison, J., Dubuis, A., Guisan, A., Leps, J., Lindborg, R., Moora, M., Partel, M., Pellissier, L., Pottier, J., Vittoz, P., Zobel, K. & Zobel, M.
Lindborg, R., Helm, A., Bommarco, R., Heikkinen, R.K., Kühn, I., Pykälä, J. & Pärtel, M.
Author(s): Lindborg, R., Helm, A., Bommarco, R., Heikkinen, R.K., Kühn, I., Pykälä, J. & Pärtel, M.
Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Strzelecka M., Kamal S., Gutowska J.
Author(s): Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Strzelecka M., Kamal S., Gutowska J.
Author(s): Trochet A., Schmeller D.S.
Arponen, A., Lehtomaki, J., Leppanen, J., Tomppo, E., Moilanen, A.
Author(s): Arponen, A., Lehtomaki, J., Leppanen, J., Tomppo, E., Moilanen, A.
Bocedi G., Atkins K.E., Liao J., Henry R., Travis J., Hellmann J.J.
Author(s): Bocedi G., Atkins K.E., Liao J., Henry R., Travis J., Hellmann J.J.
Felinks, B., Pardini, R., Dixo, M., Follner, K., Metzger, J.-P., Henle, K.
Author(s): Felinks, B., Pardini, R., Dixo, M., Follner, K., Metzger, J.-P., Henle, K.
Efficient biodiversity monitoring: Which taxonomic level to study?
Kallimanis, A.S., Mazaris, A.D., Tsakanikas, D., Dimopoulos, P., Pantis, J.D., Sgardelis, S.P.
Author(s): Kallimanis, A.S., Mazaris, A.D., Tsakanikas, D., Dimopoulos, P., Pantis, J.D., Sgardelis, S.P.
Title: Efficient biodiversity monitoring: Which taxonomic level to study?
Author(s): Salomaa A., Paloniemi R.
Leingärtner, A., Krauss, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I.
Author(s): Leingärtner, A., Krauss, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I.
Cent J., Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A.
Author(s): Cent J., Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A.
Santos, R., Antunes, P., Ring, I., Clemente, P.
Author(s): Santos, R., Antunes, P., Ring, I., Clemente, P.
Pe'er, G., L. V. Dicks, P. Visconti, R. Arlettaz, A. Báldi, T. G. Benton, S. Collins et al.
Author(s): Pe'er, G., L. V. Dicks, P. Visconti, R. Arlettaz, A. Báldi, T. G. Benton, S. Collins et al.
Mazaris A.D., Papanikolaou A.D., Barbet-Massin M., Kallimanis A.S., Jiguet F., Schmeller D.S. , Pantis J.D.
Author(s): Mazaris A.D., Papanikolaou A.D., Barbet-Massin M., Kallimanis A.S., Jiguet F., Schmeller D.S. , Pantis J.D.
Tzeng, W.-N., Tseng, Y.-H., Han, Y.-S., Hsu, C.-C., Chang, C.-W., Di Lorenzo, E., Hsieh, C.-H.
Author(s): Tzeng, W.-N., Tseng, Y.-H., Han, Y.-S., Hsu, C.-C., Chang, C.-W., Di Lorenzo, E., Hsieh, C.-H.
Author(s): Nowicki, P., Vrabec, V.
Expansion of Nature Conservation Areas: Problems with Natura 2000 Implementation in Poland?
Author(s): Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Cent, J.
Expertise et concertation : peut-on penser collectivement la protection intégrée de la nature ?
Vimal R., Mathevet R., Michel L.
Author(s): Vimal R., Mathevet R., Michel L.
Title: Expertise et concertation : peut-on penser collectivement la protection intégrée de la nature ?
Vervoort, J.M., Rutting, L., Kok, K., Hermans, F.L.P., Veldkamp, T., Bregt, A.K., van Lammeren, R.
Author(s): Vervoort, J.M., Rutting, L., Kok, K., Hermans, F.L.P., Veldkamp, T., Bregt, A.K., van Lammeren, R.
Borie M., Mathevet R., Letourneau A., Ring I., Thompson J., Marty P.
Author(s): Borie M., Mathevet R., Letourneau A., Ring I., Thompson J., Marty P.
Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A., Cent J., Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Szymańska M.
Author(s): Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A., Cent J., Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Szymańska M.
Santosa, R., Ring, I., Antunesa, P., Clementea, P.
Author(s): Santosa, R., Ring, I., Antunesa, P., Clementea, P.
Amano T., Sutherland W. J.
Author(s): Amano T., Sutherland W. J.
Author(s): Apostolopoulou E., Paloniemi R.
Jiguet F., Devictor V., Julliard R., Couvet D.
Author(s): Jiguet F., Devictor V., Julliard R., Couvet D.
de Bello F., Price J.N., Münkemüller T., Liira J., Zobel,M., Thuiller W., Gerhold P., Götzenberger L., Lavergne S., Leps J., Zobel K., Pärtel M.
Author(s): de Bello F., Price J.N., Münkemüller T., Liira J., Zobel,M., Thuiller W., Gerhold P., Götzenberger L., Lavergne S., Leps J., Zobel K., Pärtel M.
Apostolopoulou E., Bormpoudakis D., Paloniemi R., Cent J., Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A., Pantis JD.
Author(s): Apostolopoulou E., Bormpoudakis D., Paloniemi R., Cent J., Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A., Pantis JD.
Liira J., Ingerpuu N., Kalamees R., Moora M., Pärtel M, Püssa K., Roosaluste E., Saar L., Tamme R., Zobel K., Zobel M.
Author(s): Liira J., Ingerpuu N., Kalamees R., Moora M., Pärtel M, Püssa K., Roosaluste E., Saar L., Tamme R., Zobel K., Zobel M.
Papanikolaou, A.D., Fyllas, N.M., Mazaris, A.D., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., Kallimanis, A.S., Pantis, J.D.
Author(s): Papanikolaou, A.D., Fyllas, N.M., Mazaris, A.D., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., Kallimanis, A.S., Pantis, J.D.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
prAna vs. apana…are you confused?
The Plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit sells “sustainable clothing for yoga, travel, and outdoor adventure enthusiasts” using the PRANA word mark and logo. The PRANA trademark has been used since as early as 1992, and even this non-yogi is aware of the well-known brand.
The Defendants are accused of selling yoga apparel under the confusingly similar name “apana,” coupled with a logo that Plaintiff feels is confusingly similar to prAna’s distinctive logo design.
“Like “prana,” “apana” is also well-known to those who practice yoga, and is closely related as the balancing vayu to the prana-vayu. It is situated in the pelvic floor, and reflects energy that moves downwards and outwards.” “prana and apana are opposing, yet balanced forces. Where ‘prana’ regulates the intake of particles and energy, ‘apana’ is responsible for the elimination of the unabsorbed residues.” Assuming regular yoga folks know all this, wouldn’t that be an argument against confusion?
What do you think…are the trademarks confusingly similar? Sound off in the comments below and stay tuned for updates. This one could get interesting.
prAna Living, LLC v. IFG Corp. et al.
Plaintiff Counsel: Nicolas F. Aldrich, Angela E. Addae of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
The Plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit, Helen of Troy Limited, is the owner of the immensely popular HYDRO FLASK trademark, used in connection with vacuum insulated stainless steel water bottles and other insulated products. Helen of Troy’s affiliate Steel Technology, LLC d/b/a Hydro Flask, an Oregon limited liability company with headquarters in Bend, Oregon, founded the HYDRO FLASK brand and product line in 2009 and today is the North American marketer and distributor of HYDRO FLASK-branded products. What Pacific Northwesterner doesn’t own at least one Hydro Flask for their weekend hiking (or brewery-visiting) adventures?
Numerous defendants, some perhaps related, are accused of selling counterfeit Hydro Flask products via counterfeit websites. Given the evidence presented in the voluminous Complaint and Exhibits (see below), the counterfeiting seems fairly apparent. The Plaintiff has filed a subsequent Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, likely the best way to deal with multiple infringing (and non-responsive) websites.
If the counterfeiting wasn’t obvious and there was any question whether the Defendants were fighting an uphill battle, the Plaintiff’s lead attorney, Mrs. Benedick, previously served as a Judicial Extern for the presiding judge, Michael Simon.
The Complaint’s Exhibit List is extensive and voluminous, with Exhibit 5 perhaps taking the record for the largest ever Exhibit logged by this blog, at a gargantuan 633 “never mind the PACER charges” pages.
This lawsuit will likely be a one-sided battle, with excellent high-value legal work on behalf of the Plaintiff and probably no response from the Defendants. However, if the end result is numerous injunctions and a (brief) stop to Hydro Flask counterfeiting, Plaintiff can be satisfied, at least for awhile.
Plaintiff has offered insurance under the trademark RED SHIELD since 1979.
Red Shield Insurance Company v. Red Shield Administration, Inc.
Defendant: Red Shield Administration, Inc.
Plaintiff Pacific Fence & Wire Company, an Oregon corporation based in Clackamas, Oregon, has used its PACIFIC trademark in connection with fences, fencing materials, and fencing services since as early as 1921.
Plaintiff brings this action because the Defendants are allegedly willfully infringing Plaintiff’s PACIFIC trademark by using the trademark PACIFIC NW FENCE & DECK to advertise and provide fencing services and by using the domain name pacificnwfenceanddeck.com.
Defendants apparently agreed to discontinue use of their trademark in 2016, temporarily stopped use in 2017-2018, but have since revived their use of the allegedly infringing trademark, hence this lawsuit.
Pacific Fence and Wire Company v. M&M Pacific NW Contracting LLC et al.
Plaintiff Counsel: Owen W. Dukelow, David P. Cooper of Kolisch Hartwell, P.C.
This trademark action sees Bob’s Red Mill Natural Foods, a popular producer of natural, certified organic, and gluten-free milled grain products, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of a “Certified Gluten-Free” certification mark owned by the Gluten Intolerance Group of North America.
Rejecting those requests, Bob’s Red Mill brings this lawsuit to obtain a judgment declaring that it may use its own gluten-free indicator, without having to seek the permission of, or pay money to, the Gluten Intolerance Group.
Plaintiff: Bob’s Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc.
THERAPIA v. THERAPYDIA…are you confused?
The plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit has been using the unregistered THERAPIA trademark for 7 years in connection with alternative medical services such as acupuncture, chiropractic therapy, massage, fertility consultation and treatment, and herbal medicine. Therapia operates in Portland, Oregon and promotes its services via its website, http://www.therapiaclinic.com.
The defendant, Therapydia Inc., is a national network of physical therapy and wellness clinics. Therapydia has locations in Portland, Beaverton, and Lake Oswego. Therapydia provides traditional (vs. alternative) medical services.
This trademark case should be interesting. Stay tuned for updates.
Therapia P.C. v. Therapydia, Inc.
The plaintiff in this lawsuit, Westcare, is a Salem, Oregon-based provider of management services to long-term care facilities. Plaintiff claims to have used their “Westcare” mark since 1987. Plaintiff obtained a federal trademark registration in October 2017.
The defendant, Westcare Foundation, is a Nevada non-profit corporation that operates long-term and short-term care facilities, including a veterans’ facility in Salem, Oregon.
The defendant allegedly first began operating in Oregon in June 2012. Plaintiff became aware of the defendant’s Oregon facility in June 2016, and asserts numerous instances of actual consumer confusion.
Plaintiff sent a series of letters requesting that defendant adopt a DBA, with no success, hence this lawsuit. Stay tuned for updates.
Westcare Management, Inc. v. Westcare Foundation, Inc.
The plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action, Outsidepride.com, Inc., seeks a declaration that its MINICLOVER trademark has not infringed the defendant’s rights in its MICROCLOVER® branded clover seed.
Outsidepride.com, Inc. v. DLF Pickseed USA, Inc.
Defendant: DLF Pickseed USA, Inc.
The plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit is an Oregon-based business “offering a full range of electrical services, including but not limited to residential, commercial and industrial services along with a comprehensive service department.” Plaintiff has used an ON ELECTRIC trademark since January 2015 in connection with its electrical services.
Both parties operate in Portland, Oregon and the surrounding areas. The complaint (below) alleges numerous instances of actual confusion among suppliers, advertisers, customers and others.
On Electric, LLC v. On Electric Group, Inc.
Defendant: On Electric Group, Inc.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.