Monthly Archives: June 2013

Worker’s fall leads to court for two companies

A linen hire service and a laundry company have both been fined for safety breaches after a worker fell from a ladder while trying to clear a blockage in an industrial-sized laundry machine.

A female employee of the linen hire company shattered her left ankle after she fell when the ladder slipped. She later needed 13 screws inserted in her foot to help repair the damage and has been unable to work since.

Read full article

Medical Device Manufacturer Bound By The Restrictive Covenants It Implemented

Restrictive covenants can be valuable tools to protect your business. However, it is important to consider at the outset what interests you want and need to protect and what conduct would violate any restrictive covenant. If you don’t (or if you later decide that you want and need to prohibit additional or broader conduct), your restrictive covenants may not bar conduct that poses a competitive threat or triggers an emotional response. The recent federal case of Kissell, et al. v. Biosense Webster, Inc. (M.D. Fla.) (Case No. 12-cv-1569) provides an example of how companies will be stuck with the terms of the restrictive covenants they implement, and may not be able to broaden the protections those covenants provide in a credible way.

Read full article

Fashion Designer Norma Kamali Hit With Unpaid Internship Lawsuit: The Trend Continues

By Jennifer A. Goldman

As the summer internship season gets underway, unpaid interns are continuing to file a spate of lawsuits claiming violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state wage and hour laws.  On May 29, 2013, fashion designer Norma Kamali was slapped with a lawsuit from a former apprentice filed in New York federal court.  This lawsuit continues a trend of unpaid interns suing employers including the Hearst Corporation, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Elite Model Management, and the Charlie Rose Show

Read full article

Injunction for Trademark Infringement: Québec

In Solutions Abilis Inc. v. Groupe Alithis Inc., the Québec Superior Court granted the plaintiff an interlocutory injunction precluding the defendant from using ALITHIS as part of its corporate name or trade name or as a trademark.  The test for an interlocutory injunction in Québec turns on whether the rights which the plaintiff invokes are clear, doubtful or non-existent.  If those rights are clear an injunction should be granted if serious harm would otherwise result.  If those rights are doubtful the court must also consider the balance of convenience.  This test is similar, although not identical, to the test used in the common law provinces where the courts must consider whether there is a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm and the balance of conclusive irreparable harm. 

Read full article

The Ninth Circuit’s Opportunity to Clarify California’s Suitable Seating Requirements

by Lisa M. Watanabe

In recent years, retailers, grocery stores and banks have been hit with a wave of lawsuits over California’s suitable seating requirements set forth in §14 of the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders.  (See http://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/wageorderindustries.htm for § 14 in 16 of 17 industry-specific Wage Orders).  Despite the surge in lawsuits, there continues to be several unanswered questions regarding the interpretation of subsections (A) and (B) to §14 which state the following:

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Free Speech Thrives in India Despite Restrictions

Freedom of speech and expressions has always been fundamental to the working of any democracy. The concept of freedom of speech and expressions had its origin in British India and has since percolated in the Indian constitution. This article examines the journey of freedom of speech and expressions in India and how the courts have played an active role in protecting the same. More…

Read full article

OIG Updates its Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs

On May 8, 2013, the OIG issued an updated Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs (the “Updated Special Advisory Bulletin”).  The Updated Special Advisory Bulletin replaces and supersedes the OIG’s 1999 Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs. […]

For more information please visit www.omwhealthlaw.com or click on the headline above.

Read full article

Balancing The Rights Of Landowners, Wind Power Developers And Mineral Rights Owners

It is the dream of many landowners in the United States to one day have both oil wells and wind turbines on their land. For this happen, however, landowners must play an active role in keeping oil and wind companies from trying to overreach each other in concurrent development of the land.

In their excellent article published by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law titled, “Jousting at Windmills: When Wind Power Development Collides with Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development,” authors K.K. DuVivier and Roderick E. Wetsel suggest that landowners will have to act as referees in an energy “Super Bowl” if they are to be successful in having concurrent wind and oil development on a single piece of property.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Trade mark application for SUPERMAN WORKOUT made in bad faith

The Federal Court1  has held that the SUPERMAN WORKOUT trade mark is not deceptively similar to the registered SUPERMAN logo and SUPERMAN word trade mark.  However, it has held that the SUPERMAN WORKOUT trade mark, when used in combination with the BG Shield Device (BG Device), a trade mark which mimics the “S” Superman Shield trade mark (S Device), constitutes bad faith, such that the SUPERMAN WORKOUT trade mark may not be accepted for registration as a trade mark. More…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Australian Pork TVC misleading or deceptive, says Advertising Claims Board

The Advertising Claims Board determined that a television advertisement produced by Australian Pork, which compared the fat content of pork and red meat, was misleading, despite a written disclaimer in the advertisement designed to qualify the claims made in the advertisement. More…

Read full article