Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In The Marketplace
Cobra Capital wins major initial victory in its trademark infringement suit against LaSalle: The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has denied the motion of defendant, LaSalle Bank Corporation and its affiliates to dismiss a trademark infringement case filed by Cobra Capital, a small finance and equipment leasing company. The court didn't simply deny the defendant's motion to dismiss, however; the judge also ordered LaSalle to pay Cobra Capital's attorneys' fees, finding that the defendant had wasted the time of both the court and plaintiff's counsel. “Under the circumstances,” the court stated, “at least after being warned, not to have withdrawn its motion is a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.” Cobra Capital LLC v. LaSalle Bank Corporation, LaSalle Bank N.A., and LaSalle National Leasing Corporation, No. 1:05-cv-02419 (Dec. 6, 2005).
Cobra Capital, a small Oak Brook, IL based company which competes in similar markets as LaSalle and its affiliates filed a trademark infringement lawsuit alleging that LaSalle infringed on Cobra Capital's registered trademark, “Making impossible possible” with LaSalle's subsequent use of a nearly identical new global tagline, “Making more possible.” The complaint alleges that Cobra Capital's trademark was awarded to its founder, Dale R. Kluga by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, almost 2 years before LaSalle released its global tagline. Kluga and his partner, Dexter Tong, are both former ABN LaSalle employees as Kluga was senior vice president and founder of LaSalle Bank's leasing company before leaving to start his first finance company 9 years earlier in 1996. Tong was formerly senior vice president and assistant treasurer of ABN AMRO, Inc. until 2001 when he received his final equity payout from ABN AMRO's acquisition of The Chicago Corporation.
LeaseSmart, Inc. of Toronto has announced plans to expand into heavy equipment and construction financing. The commercial loan company will now be offering heavy equipment financing to clients for capital equipment, hardware and in some cases software. The company noted that because many business owners currently don't realize “soft costs” (items such as training, installation and consultation) can be leased, LeaseSmart will also be offering this service.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?