Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.
METIS PRODUCTS, LLC v. JAMES PANTERA, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)
What can you do with employees, officers, and executives who try to interfere with your business and launch a competing enterprise? It’s an age old problem that has become much more prominent when a few clicks of the mouse in a matter of seconds can disable your ability to function. Quick and immediate court relief is essential in these situations.
Metis Products, LLC is a San Diego based inventor and manufacturer of innovative ice packs for use with humans and horses. The Defendant Pantera is alleged to have taken all of the source files for the Metis website without authorization and posted a virtually identical website online. Defendant Pantera is alleged to have modified the Metis website so that payments were directed to his personal PayPal account without authorization. In addition, Defendant Pantera is alleged to have activated the online banking function associated with Plaintiff Metis’s bank account so that his personal email address would be used for communications associated with the Plaintiff’s bank account.
The lawsuit includes claims for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, cybersquatting, federal trademark infringement, copyright infringement, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, unfair competition, California unfair competition, breach of contract, and conversion. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants and transfer the infringing domain name to Plaintiff. Additional relief requested includes disgorgement of profits, compensatory damages, statutory damages of $100,000 per domain name, statutory damages of $150,000 per copyright infringement, actual damages in the amount of $15,300 for Defendant Pantera’s acts of conversion, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest, and any further relief the Court deems appropriate. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1346.
OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. JOHN T. EVANS, JR.
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (CAMDEN)
If the allegations are true then the website operated by the Defendant is “phishing”. What’s worse than having a replica website with all of the attendant consequences on the web? Having a website that captures and harvests your customer information and uses it for spam and other nefarious purposes. Setting up an early warning system using online alerts for your trademark and business name is essential.
Ocwen is a global financial services company and alleges that the Defendant has launched a replica “Ocwen” and is soliciting and harvesting personal information from Ocwen’s customers via this allegedly phony website. The hacking claim apparently relates to unauthorized access to Ocwen’s website computer code and the subsequent copying of it.
Plaintiff has sued for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trademark infringement, violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, trafficking in counterfeit marks under New Jersey law, statutory unfair competition, and breach of contract. The prayer for relief includes a request for extensive injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, an order to transfer the infringing domain names to Plaintiff, and any additional relief the Court deems proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1347.
IGD SYSTEMS, LLC v. GABRIELA ISTURIZ, ET AL.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (PITTSBURGH)
There is a lot to be said for escorting key personnel from a building upon their resignation or termination. It is of course essential that access to all computers be modified immediately to preclude unauthorized access and hacking.
The Plaintiff’s primary asset is a software program that provides fully automated ebilling delivery and management systems for law firms. The Defendants were former officers of the Plaintiff’s company. Upon their resignation, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants surreptitiously attempted to sabotage the company’s operations and gain total control of the company. The Defendants are alleged to have logged into the administrative aspects of the software system hosted by Rackspace and modified settings.
The lawsuit includes claims for violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract, violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, civil conspiracy, and conversion. The prayer for relief requests a declaratory order from the court that establishes IGD as the sole and exclusive owner of the software, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, remediation costs, punitive damages, and further relief the Court should deem appropriate. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1348.