Category Archives: Trade Law

Virgin adds to VIRGINIC case new groundless litigation against 3 more small startups

MIAMI, Florida, 2020-Apr-29 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — Sir Richard Branson and his Virgin Group do not trade in… Virgins! Furthermore the word ‘virgin’ is itself a common word and an arbitrary one when used in connection to Virgin’s various business pursuits. For context purposes, here’s some more fun with trademarking Apple.

The word itself, Apple, is a common word and contrary to popular belief it is possible to trademark a common word. This is allowed because the word is arbitrary when used in connection to the manufacturer of iPhones and computers etc. Apple doesn’t sell apples, and neither does the Apple Rubber Co and many others who also own the trademark to the word ‘Apple.’ Multiple companies can own the trademark to the same common word, as long as the products they sell aren’t so similar that they cause confusion for consumers.

In spite of being a globally recognized brand, Virgin is currently pursuing a court case against a small online beauty company named VIRGINIC LLC, attempting to force them to close their store and demanding a hand over of their website domains and social media accounts to Virgin Group.

VIRGINIC LLC is a startup with a visionary desire to keep creating chemical-free, allergy-free, raw face cream formulas, for the direct benefit of an organic-minded female consumer. VIRGINIC brand name is to recall beyond-organic level of purity with no chemical additives and a holistic approach to ethical and all natural sourcing. Their production practices are mindful of protecting the planet through sustainable packaging materials and supporting local farming for ingredients sourcing. Yes, they are lovely people with an ethos that we can all support as it’s hard not to.

As for Virgin, they don’t sell cosmetics currently and neither do they have any intention to do so in future. From our common sense lesson in trademark law this should be an open and shut case, should it not? It seems crystal clear that two companies selling completely different products with names using a common word in an arbitrary manner, no virgins being sold, should both have the right to trademark that word.

Or in this case an invented word similar to that word, it would be like Apple vs Appleic. What’s more in the UK where this case started 2 years ago, a quick search reveals many companies trading under the word ‘Virgin’ offering various services. They’re able to do so for the reasons already stated above.

So why would Virgin target a small startup that doesn’t even use the name “virgin” and doesn’t trade in phones, planes and spaceships but natural face creams? It appears to be nothing more than pure speculative spitefulness by certain lawyers needing to justify their retainer and earn exorbitant fees from their client.

One can almost imagine those lawyers idly examining new trademark applications looking for marks that look somewhat similar to their client’s, no matter how tenuous the connection and salivating over the thought of the juicy fees to follow.

This sort of behavior is no better than the ‘ambulance chaser’ stereotype that looms large in the public’s imagination. In fact, under common law there was historically an offence referred to as ‘barratry’ referring to people who are “overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation” or who bring “repeated or persistent acts of litigation” for the purposes of profit or harassment. Sadly for VIRGINIC, this is no longer an offense in England and Wales. Now the turn is for the US court system to judge on the merits vs manipulative discourse of Virgin’s lawyers justifying their retainers.

Some of the investigative journalists following VIRGINIC case point out that the actual litigation is indeed pointless and harassing in nature. Furthermore it is destructive and punitive. VIRGINIC was already denied the appeal in UK, Virgin got paid £35,000 but since that wasn’t enough, Virgin’s lawyers proceeded to open more lawsuits against VIRGINIC in more countries, including countries where VIRGINIC doesn’t trade.

VIRGINIC refused to commit business suicide and close the shop, just because Virgin said so. Virgin’s lawyers responded by opening personal lawsuits against key employees and managers of VIRGINIC in both US and UK, using an alter ego theory as a legal crutch. In David vs Goliath cases, a big corporation can starve a small company financially to death, break their spirit by forcing them to give up simply because a small company is no longer able to afford piling up legal fees (in this case internationally) – a common tactic of a common bully.

Virgin opened personal lawsuits against shocked and distressed key employees and managers of VIRGINIC calling them in Wyoming court an “alter ego” of VIRGINIC company itself. When VIRGINIC and its management heroically kept refusing to be destroyed, more personal lawsuits were opened in the court of England.

VIRGINIC stated on their website that they felt it was morally wrong to close the business and stop making natural cosmetics for people with allergies that asks for them every day, just because a multi-billion dollar attacker has such a wish. In response to that, Virgin’s lawyers just recently added to the ongoing lawsuit 3 unrelated to VIRGINIC start up companies (in both court of both Wyoming, US and London, England) – companies where VIRGINIC employees used to work based on same “alter ego” legal crutch theory, causing even greater surprise to all spectators and a real financial damage to other small entities that stated no connection to VIRGINIC.

VIRGINIC announced on their social media that directly due to high legal fees causing hardship to its business half of their employees had to be laid off. At the expense of a great personal toll to those individuals and at a great loss of human capital in general, Virgin is further magnifying the damage caused.

If any business case is the personification of vicious, pointless litigation that only serves to enrich overpaid lawyers then this is it. Let us hope that a fairytale ending lies in store for the good folks at VIRGINIC and their spirit of not giving up on their dream, with a deserved comeuppance for the villain of the piece.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Virgin Demands Small Cosmetic Company VIRGINIC Closes and Opens Lawsuits Against its Main Employees

New York, NY, 2020-Apr-23 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — One of the greatest challenges currently facing the business world is the relentless pursuit of ownership of brand names, logos, typefaces, slogans and even colors! The judiciary are constantly inundated with cases regarding the alleged illegal or improper use of any, or any combination, of these.

But how much of this is a waste of the court’s time? How often is a case being brought simply because an in-house legal beagle needs to justify their salary? How many cases are brought that should simply, in any real world of common sense, never make it out of the split second of foolishness of that very thought’s creator?

Now, the idea that somebody really believed it necessary to protect their idea/investment/invention by receiving confirmation that it was indeed theirs, does, of course, make some sense. Invent the perfect diet in the form of a single daily dose tablet and you should be able to protect that invention and make as much money as the marketplace deems it to be worth until somebody comes up with a way of simply breathing in the perfect diet, and your invention becomes worthless.

And there is, in and of itself, the answer to many of our questions, whether or not we really knew that we had them. Money. Without this fiendish instrument of perceived wealth, where would we be? Would anybody, anywhere ever need to know who invented something of great use to the general populous? Would anybody give you the pats on the back and the “attaboys” that your genius deserved? Well, maybe, and, more likely the case, maybe not.

But would you care? I mean, let’s be honest, if you honestly did all this just for the kudos, you wouldn’t have needed the patent application form in the first place, right? You did it for the money, as is your absolute right to do, and you are simply protecting your investment and the value that your invention has.

Trademarks are, however, a whole different ball game. Take the example of Odysseas Papadimitriou’s company trademark application for his WalletHub brand, a brand that offered a website able to compare various offers such as insurance, loans, mortgages etc. The trademark application for his logo, a white “W” set in a green square, was disputed by, of all things, Major League Baseball! The claim was that the MLB had not one but TWO similar logos that would be infringed upon were the application allowed. One of these is a logo that has not been used in baseball since 1960, the year that the Washington Nationals became the Minnesota Twins whilst the other is a flag that the Chicago Cubs fly in their stadium if they win!

How are either of these “uses” threatened in any way, financial or otherwise, by a website that offers financial documentation organization services? Are WalletHub suddenly getting calls from angry customers, unable to get seats for the game? Are the MLB getting calls asking for financial advice?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the key to this whole mess…IS THE CONSUMER CONFUSED ABOUT WHO OR WHAT THEY ARE ENGAGING WITH FOR GOODS OR SERVICES? That is the acid test. That is the reason the law uses to justify its very existence. That is the fly in the inhouse legal beagle’s ointment…Can they PROVE that this brand confusion would exist?

A perfect example of this is the case of Virgin Group PLC v VIRGINIC LLC (you already see where this is going, right?!). VIRGINIC is a young start-up specializing in all-natural, organic beauty products. Not trains. Not planes. Not telephones.

In fact, not any product that is even similar to anything that the Virgin group does or even has ever produced. Clearly there can be no confusion here. But what’s that, I hear you cry? The name is similar? Surely name similarity is not enough. For example, Ford once manufactured a car called the Capri. Now we have the Capri Sun brand all over the world. Is there an issue? Are people buying juice boxes worried that they are made in a car factory? Of course they are not. That would be silly, wouldn’t it?!

VIRGINIC was dismissed by a judge in the UK at the THIRD time of asking, having already beaten Virgin’s trademark infringement case on two previous occasions.The virtue of the freedom of speech that we protect so rigorously, is not an objective virtue any more in the common legal sense, apparently.

For as long as there exists a particular judge able to be swayed by vague and ridiculous arguments, such as those employed by the Virgin lawyers, on a particular day, in a particular place, we will carry on down this absurd legal rabbithole, wasting both the time and money of the taxpayer and of both businesses in question, meanwhile doing nothing for the consumer other than limit their access to the products that they may actually wish to purchase.

And are those not the people that these very laws were enacted to protect in the first place?

Trademark case numbers (UK00003283156)

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

DIGI Communications N.V. will challenge NMHH’s decision, by all means, according to the Hungarian and European law

BUCHAREST, Romania, 13-Sep-2019 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — The Company (DIGI Communications N.V.) would like to inform its investors and the market on the decision of rejection issued on September 13 by the Hungarian National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH), in respect to the participation of the Company in the tender related to wireless broadband services supporting the introduction of 5G in Hungary. The Company took part in this procedure in order to develop the mobile communications activity on the Hungarian market.

The Company considers NMHH’s decision unfair and without legal grounds. In our view, NMHH decision exceeds the provisions of the tender documentation and is based on assumptions and future projections instead of facts and documented analyses. This decision continues a list of other unfavorable and controversial resolutions taken by NMHH in the past, related to Digi Group companies during previous radiofrequencies tenders.

The Company will challenge this decision, by all means, according to the Hungarian and European law. The Group is determined to continue the execution of its projects on Hungarian market in the best interest of its customers.

SOURCE: EuropaWire

Digi Communications N.V. announces the publishing of Report of legal acts concluded by DIGI Communications N.V. in accordance with Romanian Law no. 24/2017 and FSA Regulation no. 5/2018

BUCHAREST, Romania, 26-Jul-2018 — /EPR Law News/ — Digi Communications N.V. (“Digi” or the “Company”) announces that on July 26, 2018 the Company submitted the Independent Limited Assurance Report on the information included in the current reports issued by the Company in accordance with requirements of Law 24/2017 (Article 82) and FSA Regulation no. 5/2018 for H1 2018to the Romanian Stock Exchange (“BVB”). The Report is also available on the Company’s website.

For details regarding the reports, please access the official websites designated of Digi: www.digi-communications.ro (Investor Relations Section).

SOURCE: EuropaWire

SIXTEEN NEW COMPANIES ENTER INTO PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH CHRIMAR

Longview Texas, 2016-Jun-07 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — Chrimar Holding Company, LLC today announced that sixteen (16) technology companies and/or certain divisions within these companies have entered into non-exclusive licenses for certain equipment under certain Chrimar patents including certain Power over Ethernet (PoE) equipment designed for deployment within a BaseT Ethernet network, ten (10) of the new licensees include:

– Allied Telesis, Inc.
– Black Box Corporation
– Buffalo Inc.
– Edimax Technology Co. Limited
– Keyscan Inc.
– Korenix USA Corporation
– Moxa Inc. & Moxa Americas Inc.
– Phihong USA Corporation
– Transition Networks Inc.
– Tycon Systems Inc.

”We are very pleased to see that the trend of taking licenses for this critical technology is continuing to increase, with the number of licensees totaling twenty-five (25)” said John F. Austermann III, President & CEO of Chrimar.

ABOUT CHRIMAR
Chrimar was the first company to employ DC current within a BaseT network in the early 1990s and has received a number of US patents for this very important technology. Chrimar continues to market its EtherLock™ family of products for asset control, management and security. The Chrimar portfolio includes US patents numbers 7,457,250, 8,155,012, 8,902,760, 8,942,107, 9,019,838 and 9,049,019.

Chrimar Contacts:

Amanda N. Barnes, 903-500-2021
John F. Austermann III, 248-478-4400

Steve Dawson, CHC, 911 NW Loop 281, Suite 211-30, Longview, TX 75604, 248-770-5780

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

No duty to avoid tax. No kidding. Lebowitz Edelman advises that directors will lead the way

Recently, the Tax Justice Network sent a letter to every CEO in Hong Kong to tell them about a legal opinion they obtained from a firm of solicitors. The opinion deals with whether directors have a positive duty to shareholders to avoid tax. It concludes that they do not.

This is in fact uncontroversial, but it is only part of the story.

A key duty of a director is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. When deciding what best promotes the success of their company, the directors must take into account all relevant factors and assess their relative merits.

Relevant factors for the directors to consider include how to increase the company’s post-tax profits. One way this can be done is by reducing the company’s tax bill, so that is likely to be a relevant consideration. There will also be other factors to consider, such as the company’s business relationships, maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and the impact of the company’s actions upon the community. Any of these may counterbalance the desire to minimize tax liabilities.

Some tax planning will be likely to promote the success of the company. Some may go too far and be outweighed by other considerations. And it is up to the directors of a company to decide where to draw the line in relation to the company’s specific circumstances.

So long as directors give all relevant factors proper consideration when making decisions about tax planning, and provided they can justify the decisions that they make, they should not incur liability for breach of their duties.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Lebowitz Edelman has advised the trustees of Leading Hotel Group’s pension scheme on its purchase of a bulk annuity policy with Leading Life Insurance Company

The HKD 440m bulk annuity policy insures the defined benefit benefits of the pension scheme.

Lebowitz Edelman pensions partner Dana Cheng said “Lebowitz Edelman worked closely with the pension scheme trustees to strike a deal which provides security for members of the pension scheme while also removing a volatile liability from its balance sheet, and was completed in exceptionally short timetable”.

Sam T. Lai, Chairman of the Trustee of the Hotel Group Pension Plan, said: “The Trustee’s first priority has been to ensure the future security of members’ benefits. The Plan’s strong funding, following additional financial support from its corporate sponsor, prompted consideration of a buy-in/ buy-out of the Plan’s liabilities. Following a comprehensive review of insurance providers, the Trustee chose the Life Insurance Company on a combination of product structure, value-for-money, price certainty and the long-term security it brings as a low risk regulated insurer. All parties worked professionally and collaboratively to agree the final price and terms over a short time, resulting in a great outcome for the members of the Plan.”

This buy-out is part of a continuing trend of pension schemes and their employers going to the insurance market to secure scheme liabilities. Lebowitz Edelman has worked on a number of high profile buy-ins and buy-outs including the buy-out of the Retirement Benefit Scheme and the purchase of a bulk purchase annuity for the Fund to insure pensioner liabilities.

The Lebowitz Edelman team was lead by pension partner Dana Cheng with support from senior associate Jane Chiao, consultant Derek Sloan and associates Joan Gim Gong.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Lebowitz Edelman advises Leading Bank and Investment Fund on refinancing and Commercial Mortgage-backed Securities Securitization in the Amount of EUR 406.1 million

Lebowitz Edelman has advised Leading Bank and Investment Fund as arrangers and lead managers on the refinancing of the securitization by a new CMBS in the amount of EUR 406.1 million.

With this transaction, the volume of European Commercial Mortgage-backed Securities transactions entered into this year has increased to approximately EUR 5.5 billion.

The major part of the new securitization serves to refinance the matured Commercial Mortgage-backed Securities and is secured by a portfolio of Hong Kong multi-family residential property controlled by leading Investments Fund; in addition and subject to certain conditions, it may be used to refinance the real estate portfolio. The issue is split into four classes of notes. The senior class bears interest at a rate of Euribor plus 1.92%. The notes have a term of 8 years, maturing in 2021.

Lebowitz Edelman has advised Leading Bank and Investment Fund across all aspects of the financing and securitization, from the structuring of the transaction, negotiating the loan and CMBS documentation, through to the execution of the new facility agreement and the issue of the Notes.

The Lebowitz Edelman Team was led by partner Matt Law-Yone (capital markets and securitization) and included partners Glen Fee, Dr. Gus Gin (both finance), Dr. Helen Jung (tax, all Hong Kong), Judy Zia (finance, Hong Kong), Dr. Tao Wong (capital markets and securitisation, all Hong Kong.

Another Lebowitz Edelman team amongst Martin Ming (Counsel) supported by Niketa Tahori (Associate) has advised the Security Trustee and the Trustee and Issuer Security Trustee (Hong Kong Trustee Company).

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Chief Litigation Counsel Matthew Sheng to Leave Lebowitz Edelman

Lebowitz Edelman announced that Matthew T. Sheng, the Chief Litigation Counsel for the Division of Enforcement, will leave the firm next year.

Mr. Sheng has led the Enforcement Division’s litigation program, managing cases pending both in courts and administrative proceedings at the Commission. The trial unit has 40 attorneys at the Lebowitz Edelman’s Hong Kong headquarters as well as litigators throughout the agency’s offices.

Mr. Sheng served as lead trial counsel in the Lebowitz Edelman’s successful prosecution of Chi Mingus in addition to directly assisting in litigation efforts for several other significant matters. Mr. Sheng also developed and directed the Lebowitz Edelman’s litigation response to significant changes in the securities laws such as the Supreme Court’s decisions.

Last year, Mr. Sheng was the recipient of the Lebowitz Edelman Chairman’s Award for Excellence.

“Matt’s outstanding stewardship of the trial unit and his impressive command of the securities laws have resulted in many favorable outcomes for our litigation program,” said Justin R. Long, Co-Director of the Lebowitz Edelman’s Division of Enforcement. “Matt will leave a legacy of great service to the agency and the investing public, and we wish him every success in the future.”

Mr. Sheng said, “It has been a privilege to lead such a talented and dedicated team of professionals committed to prosecuting wrongdoing in the securities markets. During my time in the Enforcement Division, I have been fortunate to work with great people on significant and challenging matters on behalf of our international clientele.”

Mr. Sheng began his legal career as a law clerk at the Court of Appeals for the Hong Kong Circuit. He then served as a law clerk for then-Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Supreme Court. After his clerkships, Mr. Sheng worked as a litigation associate for a national law firm and later held several positions in the Criminal Division of the Hong Kong Department of Justice, eventually becoming chief of staff to the Assistant Attorney General.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Antitrust and Innovation: Pro or Anti-competitive?

Antitrust and commercial lawyers in private practice, in-house lawyers, enforcement officials and academics will gather in Hong Kong for the 17th annual competition conference, presented by the antitrust committee and supported by the Southeast Asian Forum.

Our antitrust team will play an active part in this year’s conference.

Michael Chang, Southeast Asian Forum’s President and antitrust partner, will introduce the conference. Malese Quan, a partner in our Lebowitz Edelman Hong Kong team, will speak on antitrust and innovation in the first panel, which will examine how antitrust agencies protect and promote innovation and whether the right balance can be struck, between the recognition of pro-competitive benefits of incentives to innovate, and the anti-competitive concerns raised by certain practices, such as in patents and the use of online data.

Vice-President and Southeast Asian Commissioner in charge of Competition, Adam Kwong, is the conference keynote speaker.

Other topics include:

•  Challenges of global merger control – international merger control enforcement: are we still seeking coordination of substance and procedure or do we accept multinational cacophony?

•  Pricing strategies: MFNs, discounts, discrimination

•  Cartels evidentiary standards

•  Views from those who are shaping competition law

•  Case study: antitrust and the music industry – a long and winding road

Malese Quan is widely recognized as a leading lawyer in the innovative TMT sectors according to independent guides. He has advised on a number of precedent-setting merger and behavioral investigations as well as regulatory and antitrust litigation in these sectors. Malese heads Lebowitz Edelman ‘s media sector group. Our global antitrust, intellectual property and TMT groups advise some of the world’s leading technology, media, telecoms and life science companies in relation to their antitrust, regulatory, licensing and litigation strategies.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

A Major Chinese Eurobond Deal of 2013

Lebowitz Edelman has closed a major Chinese Eurobond deal of 2013, indicating optimism about the Chinese market.

Lebowitz Edelman had advised a Leading Bank and Investment Trust, as arrangers on the USD7 billion programs for the issuance of Loan Participation Notes by a Capital Investment Company for the purpose of financing loans to open Joint-Stock Company for a Chinese Agricultural Bank, and Leading Bank and Investment Trust. Loan Participation Notes due 2014 were issued as Series 4.

Chinese Agricultural Bank will be a 100% state-owned bank and is one of the leading financial institutions providing lending support to Chinese agribusiness. Today its network of 78 regional branches and over 1,430 additional offices covers the whole territory of the China and is the second largest regional branch network in the country. Chinese Agricultural will rank number four among the largest banks of the Chinese by assets and capital.

Hong Kong capital markets partner Howard Luen Jang commented: “This is an important deal for the Chinese market, given the current environment. The deal also underlines the strength of the Lebowitz Edelman’s Capital Markets team and its ability to provide seamless service across offices and jurisdictions”.

Lebowitz Edelman ‘s Hong Kong team was lead by partner Howard Luen Jang, who was assisted by associates James Jing, Maria Jade Wong and Lisa Ling. Senior associate Alexander Tan and associate Zhou Zong advised on the Chinese securities law matters; partner Matthew Lee and senior associate Jonathan Dang advised on Chinese law matters.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Anthony Citrolo Elected Executive Vice President & Director of The Long Island Chapter Of The Accountant/Attorney Networking Group Inc. (AANG)

It has been announced today that, Anthony Citrolo, CPA, CVA, CMAA, CBI has been elected as the 2012 Executive Vice President and Director of the Long Island Chapter of the Accountant/Attorneys Networking Group Inc. (AANG)

The Accountant/Attorney Networking Group is comprised solely of practicing accountants and practicing attorneys who service multiple clients. The purpose of the group is to facilitate networking between and among attorneys and accountants – two professions that have enormous synergy and potential for cross referrals. AANG offers 12 monthly networking breakfast meetings exclusively for accountants and attorneys. AANG also hosts two major networking cocktail receptions open to all professionals. The organizations’ web site is www.aangny.org

According to Mr. Citrolo a Managing Partner of M&A firm NYBB/Reliance Strategies, “the AANG creates a great platform for Accountants and Attorneys to meet and share information and ideas that can be used to bring cutting edge financial and legal solution to business owners or entrepreneurs engaged in a business sale or acquisition. Further Mr. Citrolo adds, “since Accountants and Attorneys are key players of the deal team that representbusiness buyers and sellers, the coordination of their efforts can result in lowering the fees incurred in the transaction and giving the deal the best chance of being consummated.”

About NYBB/Reliance

NYBB/Reliance Strategies is a full-service Merger & Acquisition firm in Melville, New York assisting companies with up to $50M in revenue to develop an exit strategy or make a targeted acquisition. In addition to M&A and consulting services, NYBB/Reliance offers valuation services in determining both Business and Transaction Values. Anthony can be reached at 631.390.9650 or anthony@nybbinc.com.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Welcome to EPR Law News

EPR Law News is a new blog, part of EPR Network, that is going to be focused on and will be covering the law news and stories from press releases published on EPR Network.

EPR Network (EPR stands for express press release) is one of the nation’s largest press release distribution networks on Web. The EPR’s nationwide network includes 12 State based PR sites, one major PR forum and a number of industry specific PR blogs and what started as a hobby on Internet years ago turned out to be a rapidly growing business today. EPR Network is also known as one of the most trusted (human optimized, published, edited and monitored, spam/scam/low quality PR content free) PR sites on the web with more than 10,000 company and individual press releases distributed per month. EPR Network is putting your press releases on top of all major search engines’ results and is reaching thousands of individuals, companies, PR specialists, media professionals, bloggers and journalists every day.

EPR Network has thousands of clients around the world including global 500 corporations like Hilton Hotels, Barclays Bank, AXA Insurance, Tesco UK, eBay/Skype, Emirates, just to name a few. The network’s PR web sites are currently reaching from 150,000 to sometimes 500,000 unique visitors per month while our viral reach could possibly go to as much as 1M people per month through our presence across various social media sites. EPR Network was established in 2004 and as of May 2008 it had more than 800,000 press releases (pages) published on its network.

If you have a press release to be distributed, you can do it over here: press release distribution