Lady Gaga is one of music’s most successful pop stars. Well known for her over the top, controversial and bizarre fashion, Lady Gaga is a music icon. Like many celebrities, Lady Gaga is registering and has registered a suite of trade marks all over the world in her company’s name ‘Ate My Heart Inc’ to protect her well known brands. read more…
Monthly Archives: November 2011
Lady Gaga Eliminates Lady Goo Goo! London High Court Grants Lady Gaga an Injunction to stop Trade Mark Infringement
There comes a time in any lawyers practice that we must sit back and ask ourselves “is my client telling me what to tell him? Does my client really want my opinion?.
Personally, been there done that! More often that I would like, I’ve found myself trying to,convince my own client of my opinion and my recommendation. Trying to convince him as if I was convincing my counterparts.
Clients have come with issues and consultations, have been rendered the opinion or recommendation, and as if was the more normal thing in the world, have “questioned” them with the “but I really think” speech.
Erroneous Jury Instructions Cause Kansas Supreme Court To Reverse Jury Verdict In Trade Secret/Restrictive Covenant Case
Co-authored by Viktoria Lovei.
The Supreme Court of Kansas recently issued an opinion in Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth and Global Cooking Systems, LLC, No. 99,536 (Ka. Oct. 21, 2011), a trade secret misappropriation and restrictive covenant case brought by a manufacturer of conveyor pizza ovens, Wolfe Electric, against its former president, Duckworth, and his new conveyor pizza oven company, Global Cooking Systems. At trial, the jury had found in favor of Wolfe Electric on all causes of action, including breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“KUTSA”), and awarded it damages in a variety of categories. The defendants appealed the jury verdict on numerous grounds and the Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court. While there were numerous issues before the Supreme Court, the court’s reversal was based on its finding that multiple jury instructions were erroneous. In particular, the Supreme Court held that the jury instructions did not properly conform to KUTSA by allowing defendants to be held liable for misappropriating confidential information when KUTSA only prohibits the misappropriation of trade secrets. The court found that the trial court also erred by providing various instructions which allowed the jury to find defendants liable for actions (e.g., merely forming a competitive business) which were not prohibited by the narrow restrictive covenants in Duckworth’s employment contract. In that regard, the Supreme Court also held that because the interpretation of a contract is a question of law for the court to decide, the trial court erred by allowing the jury to interpret Duckworth’s employment contract.
Fortune Magazine came out with its issue naming the “2011 Businessperson of the Year,” as well as 49 runners-up. As one would expect, the 50 individuals featured by Fortune are extraordinary leaders who have attained exceptional results for their respective businesses. What’s remarkable about this list, however, is that only four of the 50 businesspeople are women.
Women comprise almost half of the workforce, yet they account for only 6% of corporate CEOs and top executive positions. “Chipping Away at the Glass Ceiling: Gender Spillovers in Corporate Leadership” by David A. Matsa and Amalia Miller, 2011. At law firms, barely 15% of equity partners are women – a level that has not improved over many years, according to an October 2011 survey by The National Association of Women Lawyers and The NAWL Foundation. Although women have made much progress toward achieving equality in the workplace, we still have a long way to go. We would be wise to continue to focus our energy on identifying and addressing gender disparities at the highest levels of corporate America.
By: Forrest Read
The new Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) standards (the “2010 Standards”), set to take effect on March 15, 2012, create new compliance obligations and contain technical specifications impacting what have become fixtures in most hotel lobbies or common areas: automatic teller machines (“ATMs”). As is customary when new standards are set to take effect and become enforceable, hotels with existing ATMs want to know whether and how their ATMs will be impacted by the 2010 Standards and whether they will be afforded any safe harbor protections for compliance with currently effective requirements. The answer, not surprisingly, is not a hard-and-fast rule, and any safe harbor protection will apply on an element-by-element basis.
In 2008, California amended its environmental marketing law to prohibit the sale of food or beverage containers within the state that are labeled with the terms “biodegradable,” “degradable,” or “decomposable.” Now, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has filed the state’s first court action under the law against three companies that allegedly made false and misleading claims by marketing plastic water or beverage bottles as 100 percent “biodegradable” and “recyclable.”
To read the full alert, please click here.
Without a doubt, companies face challenges when doing business in other countries. Whether they are just beginning to expand internationally or upholding their long-term global presence, businesses must continually navigate foreign customs, politics and rules in order to maintain successful operations outside their native countries.
But some companies—particularly U.S. companies—may find that conducting business in Canada presents far fewer challenges than operating in other nations overseas. One clear advantage is that Canada is geographically close to the U.S. Additionally, Canada and the U.S. share many cultural similarities.
For the full article, please click here.
Curious about ACO’s? OMW is proud to announce the launch of its ACO series, a collection of blog articles describing the new ACO rules. The first article in the series addresses the FTC’s Anti-Trust Enforcement Policy.
For more information please visit www.omwhealthlaw.com or click on the headline above.
By: Daniel R. Levy
On November 16, 2011, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that registered nurses are exempt from overtime compensation under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (“NJWHL”), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1 to 56a30, even if paid on an hourly basis, because they fall within the “professional” exemption. Anderson v. Phoenix Health Care, Inc., A-2607-10T2 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 16, 2011). The Court further held that, even if registered nurses were not exempt, a claim for overtime compensation may nevertheless fail under the NJWHL’s good faith exception, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2, if the employer establishes that it conformed to the Division of Wage and Hour Compliance’s (“Division”) “longstanding interpretation that registered nurses are not entitled to overtime so long as they are compensated in excess of the weekly minimum” salary required for exemption.