Home General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

a few comments on the details

1. The dismissal of a lawsuit by the plaintiff (or even a dismissal by the court for lack of personal jurisdiction, or improper venue) does not automatically release the defendant from all claims. That usually has to be done by a separate agreement. So, the claims are still out there, to the extent that Monster Cable wants to assert them.

2. Without knowing in detail the nature of MC's claim against MV, MC's willingness to license MV to use its logo is not necessarily inconsistent with that. If MC is claiming to be a "famous brand" (like, e.g. Coca-Cola), permissive licensing is consistent, not inconsistent, with that.

3. Generally speaking, it is unethical for a lawyer to contact an adverse party directly who is represented by legal counsel. The rules regarding in-house counsel are more variable from state to state, so it's hard to be sure that Tognotti's call was improper. Of course, if MV terminated its relationship with the lawyer who had represented it in court, then there's nothing improper about a direct contact with MV from any lawyer representing MC, in-house or otherwise.

4. It does seem that the sane way to resolve this (if that's what everyone really wants) is to follow the path you've started -- a new logo for MV, and maybe a release (not a license) from MC for that logo? Getting pissed off when you're in a legal wrangle always benefits one party -- the lawyers. So, you're to be commended for counseling everyone to keep a cool head, Ray.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Signature Sound   [ Signature Sound Lounge ]


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.