Does anyone know what these cases are about and if they were resolved?
I performed a cursory search and didn't turn up any information about Tar Tar Printing. I'll keep looking, but if anyone has any additional information, it would be appreciated.
Have a nice day. :-)
Tar Tar Printing Inc. v. United States Fencing Association
Plaintiff: Tar Tar Printing Inc. Defendant: United States Fencing Association Case Number: 2:2007cv01167 Filed: March 19, 2007 Court: New York Eastern District Court Office: Central Islip Office [ Court Info ] County: Suffolk Presiding Judge: Senior-Judge Leonard D. Wexler Referring Judge: Magistrate-Judge Arlene R. Lindsay Nature of Suit: Contract - Other Contract Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract Jurisdiction: Federal Question Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Tar Tar Printing Inc. v. United States Fencing Association
Plaintiff: Tar Tar Printing Inc. Defendant: United States Fencing Association Case Number: 2:2007cv01167 Filed: March 19, 2007 Court: New York Eastern District Court Office: Central Islip Office [ Court Info ] County: Suffolk Presiding Judge: Senior-Judge Leonard D. Wexler Referring Judge: Magistrate-Judge Arlene R. Lindsay Nature of Suit: Contract - Other Contract Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract Jurisdiction: Federal Question Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Tar Tar Printing Inc. v. United States Fencing Association et al
Plaintiff: Tar Tar Printing Inc.
Defendant: United States Fencing Association and Michael Massik
Case Number: 1:2007cv00904
Filed: March 2, 2007
Court: New York Eastern District Court
Office: Brooklyn Office [ Court Info ]
County: Kings
Presiding Judge: Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry
Referring Judge: Magistrate-Judge Cheryl L. Pollak
Nature of Suit: Contract - Other Contract
Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Odd. It says violation of civil rights on the search page, not sure what that means exactly.
Does anyone know what these cases are about and if they were resolved?
The one that Pescados666 identified (the "civil rights" action) was first filed and dismissed because it was not a "civil rights" case, and thus no jurisdiction (I suspect, without looking at the complaint) it was just a typo.
A week or two later the other case was filed.
AFAICT, it appears that the current status is the USFA is objecting to being sued in New York, and discovery is being conducted on this issue, after which the USFA will have the opportunity to file a motion.
A quick summary for those who don't want to read the PDF: Proprintwear had a contract to be the exclusive supplier of USFA merchandise. They allege that the USFA broke the contract by:
1. Giving lapel pins to national referees
2. Sending out stickers with membership materials
3. Giving out t-shirts to national finalists
4. Printing the USFA logo on other materials such as business cards
5. Allowing other companies to use the logo
6. Creating a derivative logo, the "USFA International Logo" and altering the colors
7. Severing its relationship with Proprintwear and denying it space at national events as provided for in the contract
Proprintwear is demanding damages to compensate them for all lost revenue.
It looks to me as if the USFA failed to forsee the consequences of granting exclusive use of their copyright.
I'm not sure I understand Proprintwear's demands that the USFA obtain a national copyright or trademark on their logo. While it would be wise, an entity owns a mark as soon as it is created, and registry is not required. Any copyright lawyers out there?
it appears that the current status is the USFA is objecting to being sued in New York, and discovery is being conducted on this issue, after which the USFA will have the opportunity to file a motion.
--Philistine
Other than the USFA battalion of lawyers not wanting to travel to NY to defend the case (or, presumably, to spend the money to do so), is there any other advantage to keeping it out of New York courts?
"Sometimes we, as coaches, get into that dictator mode where you just tell and you don't listen and you don't try to understand them." Tom Izzo, Mich. St.
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
I am sure there are but in this case they probably won't be able to say anything.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.-Galileo Galilei
It is my understanding from past conversations with Phil that there were considerable payments to the USFA and I have also been the recipient of minor uniform items from Phil when going to Vets Worlds.
Wouldn't there be some sort of prior use precedent there? USFA HAS been using that logo for LONG before PP Wear came onto the scene...
It would depend on the wording of the contract. I am NOT a lawyer, and having not seen the contract it would be hard to say for sure, but it seems to me that they would have said what KIND of items PPW was contracted to print the USFA logo on, which would obvously not include pool sheets and the magazine. If not, well, by the letter of the law, I suppose that 'exclusive use' means just that. I hope that the judge can read past the letter of the contract to the intent of the contract and see that the USFA didn't intend to give up ALL their rights.
Other than the USFA battalion of lawyers not wanting to travel to NY to defend the case (or, presumably, to spend the money to do so), is there any other advantage to keeping it out of New York courts?
I believe they have hired a New York lawyer to handle this--which likely makes it significantly more expensive to litigate than it would be in Colorado, even apart from travel considerations.
Originally Posted by Phrogger
{snip}
I'm not sure I understand Proprintwear's demands that the USFA obtain a national copyright or trademark on their logo. While it would be wise, an entity owns a mark as soon as it is created, and registry is not required. Any copyright lawyers out there?
It is not necessary to register either a trademark or copyright to receive protection. However, registration provides significant advantages (including making certain damages available for infringement which wouldn't otherwise be available).
Originally Posted by KD5MDK
Does the case say anything about Proprintwear paying licensing fees to the USFA?
A previous version of the Complaint alleges payments in excess of $200,000 from 2001 to 2006.
Originally Posted by Phrogger
It would depend on the wording of the contract. I am NOT a lawyer, and having not seen the contract it would be hard to say for sure, but it seems to me that they would have said what KIND of items PPW was contracted to print the USFA logo on, which would obvously not include pool sheets and the magazine. {snip}
The contract is attached to the Previous version of the Complaint. The operative paragraph is:
"In order to achieve the purpose of Licensor, the parties agree that Licensor grants an exclusive License to reproduce and use the trademarks of Licensor on products for promotional purposes, including design, fulfillment and merchandise . . .."
Just a general note--anyone can get copies of documents (and dockets) filed in Federal Civil Courts. They are public records. The most convenient way is using PACER ("Public Access to Court Electronic Records")--Here is the site. It costs 8 cents a page to view (or download or print) anything. Most Federal courts either have, or in the process of going entirely over to electronic filing, which means the majority of documents filed in the past few years are available through PACER.
--Philistine
Last edited by Philistine; 05-15-2008 at 09:57 AM.
Just a general note--anyone can get copies of documents (and dockets) filed in Federal Civil Courts. They are public records. The most convenient way is using PACER ("Public Access to Court Electronic Records")--Here is the site. It costs 8 cents a page to view (or download or print) anything. Most Federal courts either have, or in the process of going entirely over to electronic filing, which means the majority of documents filed in the past few years are available through PACER.
--Philistine
I love public records, and I love PACER.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong... but, PACER would only have information about cases against the USFA where the amount sought is in excess of $75k. Correct?
Originally Posted by dekko
On a related note, are there any other lawsuits pending against US Fencing?
I don't know. My PACER searches, yesterday, only turned up the Tar Tar case. However, given the $75k threshold for Federal courts, cases less than that amount would be filed in state. That information is also public record, but it's a little trickier to track down. Each state is a different. Surprise!
Now, correct me if I'm wrong... but, PACER would only have information about cases against the USFA where the amount sought is in excess of $75k. Correct?
Probably, at least for a generic business dispute. There's a couple of other ways into federal court (employment discrimination, etc.) but a contract/business dispute/personal injury type case would require >$75k.
I don't know. My PACER searches, yesterday, only turned up the Tar Tar case. However, given the $75k threshold for Federal courts, cases less than that amount would be filed in state. That information is also public record, but it's a little trickier to track down. Each state is a different. Surprise!
In many states, some or all of the counties' records are not available online--so the only way to check is at the County courthouses Also, many states, even if online, require seperate searches by County.
Originally Posted by Pescados666 
