Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. February 2011.

Defamation Lawyer 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.


ALPHAMETRIX GROUP, LLC v. ROLAND CLARKE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-00480
FILED: 1/21/2011

If you have any concerns about a former employee disparaging or defaming your company, you can always negotiate a “non-disparagement” provision in the contract of termination. The most effective provisions carry with them a “liquidated damages” clause that requires the payment of a very significant amount of money if disparagement or defamation occurs, irrespective of the damages incurred by your company. This often times will prevent the former employee from undertaking a campaign of disparagement.

Alphametrix is a financial services firm headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant Rolan Clarke is a former employee, who was terminated from his position as director of technology in April, 2010. Plaintiff alleges that Clarke has used his technical know how to engage in a cyber campaign of defamation, Internet harassment, and other unlawful misconduct despite having signed a non-disparagement agreement at the time of termination.

Alphametrix Group claims cybersquatting, trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, deceptive trade practices, copyright infringement, breach of contract, commercial defamation, and commercial disparagement. They request injunctive relief along with cancellation or transfer of the infringing domain name, actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1472.



CATALENT PHARMA SOLUTIONS, INC. v. VARIOUS JOHN DOES, VARIOUS JANE DOES, and XYZ COMPANY
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-00218
FILED: 1/12/2011

It’s interesting that this lawsuit was only brought based upon trademark infringement when trade libel and defamation could have been included. Also, some states have now passed laws that prohibit “impersonation” and provide for some civil causes of action. At any rate, if this is happening to you there are many legal grounds upon which to pursue the perpetrators.

Catalent Pharma Solutions is a Delaware corporation and leading provider of advanced technologies in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and consumer health industries. Presently unknown Defendants are alleged to have carried on a pattern of disparagement, defamation, libel and harassment about the Plaintiff including impersonating Plaintiff’s employees and sending out email messages with pornography attached.

Catalent Pharma Solutions claims trademark infringement against the Defendants and requests injunctive relief, damages in an amount to be determined, costs, attorneys’ fees and other such relief the Court deems just. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1473.

1 comment:

The Mad Hatter said...

Right John, and we know you are trying to drum up business for your firm, like you were with that absolutely inane post about Mihaly Ficsor last year. I called you several times to try and get your response to several questions, you never called back, so I wrote the article without your response.

Wayne aka The Mad Hatter
http://madhatter.ca