Entertainment

Rachel Uchitel, the main star in Tiger Woods’ sex scandal had been given millions in hush money to stay quiet about their affair together. In fact, she was given 10 million, which begs the question: What else does she have to tell and how bad is it for Tiger to shell out a sum like that in order to keep it under wraps? Well, thanks to Uchitel’s recent appearance on VH1’s  ‘Celebrity Rehab,’  we may actually find out.

Although the former mistress never explicitly mentioned Tiger Woods, she was described as a “tabloid celebrity,” the “focus of negative media attention” and that she suffers from a “love addiction.” Bits and pieces amounting to enough for Woods’ attorney Jay Lavely to threaten Gloria Allred, Uchitel’s attorney, with their intentions of pursuing her client for this alleged breach of their confidentiality agreement. End result? Uchitel reportedly gave back a sizeable chunk of her original $10 million ‘earnings.’ The big question now is whether or not she is free to dish on all the details, an opportunity that may earn her full 10 million back and maybe even more in tv, movie, gossip column and book deals.

This likely won’t be the case. If she retained some of the money, the agreement has not been fully rescinded and Uchitel will still be required to maintain the confidentiality she settled for. And if not, and she decides to go public in a tell-all session, will anyone even care at this point? Let’s face it, since this debacle Tiger Woods’ celebrity status has plummeted, along with his golf game. It’s unclear just how much the public cares about either of these two or this scandal anymore. We’ll have to wait and see what Uchitel can come up with to gain the public’s interest again and win her millions back. News has it she may already be on her way with a potential appearance in Donald Trump’s next season of  Celebrity Apprentice .

Jurors on Wednesday convicted Barry Bonds on one count of obstruction of justice, but a mistrial was declared on three counts of perjury after jurors reported that they could not reach agreement.

The verdict shows jurors believed that Bonds lied when he testified to a grand jury in December 2003 that his trainer never injected him with a needle. However, they could not agree that he lied about knowingly using steroids.  Read More

The Jury in the  Barry Bonds  deliberations continued without verdict on Friday, as deliberations are expected to continue into next week.  Bonds is charged with one count of obstructing justice and three counts of making false statements, for refuting that he intentionally took steroids and human growth hormone during his baseball career.     This past Friday, the jurors asked for the transcript of the taped conversation between Bond’s assistant Steve Hoskins and weight trainer Greg Anderson.   The secret recording of the slugger’s former trainer allegedly discusses injecting Bonds with steroids during his playing career.  The recording was admitted into evidence, over the objection of Bonds’ attorneys.    U.S. District Judge Susan Illston  told jurors that the transcript they sought was not evidence, only the recording was. It is curious to see what, if any, effect the recording, or even the transcript may have as to the rendering of a verdict.  Anderson, Bonds’ former weight trainer, who over the last years spent numerous significant stints in jail for refusing to testify against his childhood friend Bonds, was also ordered to be released from Jail by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston.   Anderson the person, who allegedly provided Bonds with steroids that the home run king believed were “flaxseed oil and arthritis balm.”   As the Bonds’ trial comes to a finish,  Manny Ramirez , one of the games greatest sluggers  retired from baseball  on Friday, after testing positive for a performance-enhancement drug for the third time in his career.

Jury selection for the perjury trial of  Roger Clemens , the former all-star MLB pitcher begins today. The baseball hero is fighting a six-count federal indictment for allegedly lying under oath to members of Congress during a deposition in 2008. Clemens claimed that he never once used any illegal performance-enhancing drugs throughout his nearly quarter century long career. The baseball legend has won a total of 354 games and took home 7  Cy-Young Awards  before his  final pitch  on September 16, 2007. 

The case will be primarily based upon the testimony of Clemens’ former trainer  Brian McNamee  who will testify that he injected the baseball star with steroids and human growth hormones to enhance his performance. Clemens however, denies these allegations and claims McNamee is fabricating the accusations in order to save himself from drug charges. The prosecution will also attempt to utilize the testimony of former New York Yankee teammate  Andy Pettitte  who claims that in the past, Clemens has admitted drug use to him. Clemens’ attorney seeks to rebut that Pettitte simply misunderstood what was said during such conversation. The prosecution is further expected to introduce physical evidence consisting of blood stained gauze and needles allegedly used to inject the baseball star.  

 Although an unlikely end, the baseball legend’s charges could land him in jail for up to 30 years and cost him a $1.5 million fine. To avoid such a fate, Clemens will need to win the game of who is lying and who is truth telling and above all else, who the jury believes more.

Two Michigan women, Julie Brown and Kayla Molaski, have sued  Google  in a class action lawsuit stemming from the location-tracking technology included in the Android smart phone operating system.  The plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the  “Android Operating System phones log, record and store users’ locations based on latitude and longitude alongside a timestamp and unique device ID attached to each specific phone.”  The plaintiffs further claim that the “phones store this information in a file located on the phone, which allows Google to use  cell-tower triangulation  or potentially a global positioning system to obtain a user’s location.”  Google has upheld that the collection of the location data is entirely opt-in, in which “we [Google] provide users with notice and control over the collection, sharing and use of location in order to provide a better mobile experience on Android devices,” Google spokesperson Randall Safara stated last week.  The lawsuit arises from similar news, last month, in which two researchers said that location information for the Apple iPhone was stored in an unencrypted file that was backed up onto any device during the syncing process of an Apple iPhone ( http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/apple-location-tracking.html ).  Apple and Google have both been asked to attend a Senate Hearing on mobile device privacy on May 10 at 10am EDT in Washington, where witnesses from the US Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Center for Democracy and Technology, and others will talk about what the latest mobile technology means for privacy and the law. 

 For a copy of the complaint,  click here

Nike  successfully obtained a temporary restraining order barring  Reebok  from selling apparel with  Tim Tebow’s  name on it, following the Jets’ acquisition of Tebow in March.  Nike is set to replace Reebok, a subsidiary of Adidas AG, as the official supplier of NFL uniforms on April 1. Reebok was the NFL’s supplier of on-field apparel, including game uniforms, and sideline apparel for the past decade, according to ESPN. Nike will be supplying that apparel exclusively for all thirty-two NFL teams for the next five years. Prior to March 1, 2012, Reebok has printed and sold Broncos jerseys with Tebow’s name and number, per Reebok’s contract with the NFL. However, Nike contends that at this time, Nike, to Reebok’s exclusion, possesses the license required to manufacture and sell jerseys related to Tebow after his move from the Broncos. Nike contends that Reebok was shipping large volumes of Tebow-related products to capitalize on his recent move to the Jets, harming Nike’s ability to capitalize on a “unique and short-lived opportunity,” according to Nike’s lawsuit and ESPN.

Federal District Judge Castel  of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan agreed with Nike, ordering Reebok to stop producing and selling any Tim Tebow-related products that were manufactured after March 1, 2010, and all Tebow-related products that relate to any other team than the Broncos. However, in the published  court order , Judge Castel stopped short of requiring that Reebok “destroy all unauthorized Tebow products that are now in, or hereafter come into, Reebok’s custody, possession, or control.” A preliminary injunction hearing will take place on April 4, 2012.

This lawsuit stems from causes of action for alleged defamation, defamation  per se  and interference with business relations, as the real life “Kramer” – Kenny Kramer – who served as the inspiration for the colorful Cosmo Kramer on the comedy series S einfeld , alleges that former Seinfeld writer/comedian Defendant Fred Stoller’s book contained “false and malicious” statements that caused damage to the Plaintiff’s Manhattan reality bus tour around Garden City.

According to Stoller’s memoir, Plaintiff’s employees would make Seinfeld television show references, such as “Not that there’s anything wrong with that” (a reference to the gay and lesbian community) when travelling through Greenwich Village, which Plaintiff considered to be defamatory and damaging to his business.

Despite this, on July 15, 2014, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe granted Defendant Stoller’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) by issuing an order to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

For the Court’s entire decision, click  here .

Pinterest, an online consumer social site which allows its users to gather images and other content and curate that content into collections called “pinboards,” won a major court battle, which included a $7.2 million judgment, against  a Chinese cybersquatter Qian Jin.  Qian Jin purchased hundreds of domain names similar to Pinterest.com (for example ptinterest.com, pinterest.de, pinterest.es, etc.)  “Cybersquatters” generally will purchase and register domains names that are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of a rising brand in hopes to make money by advertising on, or selling products on,  web sites using these similar domain names.  The court agreed with Pinterest that Qian Jin was in fact cybsersquatting.

In 1999, the United States Congress passed the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act  (“ACPA”) to combat this type of behavior (even though the Lanham Act, which existed prior to the days of the internet, was in fact a preexisting law that trademark owners could use to protect their trademarks from exploitation by others).  Essentially, under the ACPA,  a trademark owner needed to prove that there was a bad faith intent by the infringing party to profit off the use of the similar domain names (i.e. the  intent to sell the similar domain names to the trademark holder, to keep the  trademark holder from using the domain names, to disrupt the trademark holder’s  business, or to cause consumer confusion.)  It was then up to the infringing party to show that they had a good faith reason to use the domain names (for example, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the trademark).  If the infringing party could not establish a good faith reason on why it purchased the similar domain name, the trademark owner was entitled to take ownership of the the similar domains names, as well as the right to obtain statutory damages and reasonable  legal fees.

If you are in need of Cybersqautting Attorneys please contact  Bashian & Papantoniou  for a free consultation.

A federal judge in Los Angeles recently ruled that  Bret Michael’s  lawsuit involving an accident that occurred at the 2009 Tony Awards should be heard in a New York where the accident took place.  The lawsuit stems from an incident at the  Radio City Music Hall  that Michaels’ claims nearly killed him. As Michaels was walking off the stage after finishing his Tony Awards performance, a mechanical set piece hit him in the head.  Michaels’ suit against CBS Broadcasting and Tony organizers claims that the injuries he sustained, which included a broken nose, contributed to a brain hemorrhage that nearly cost him his life.       

The basis of Michaels’ claim is that he was never notified that the stage set would be changed immediately following his performance. An additional claim involves the decision by the show organizers to continue to air the incident on television. The hemorrhage sustained by Michaels left him hospitalized and forced him to cancel a number of shows.   

In switching the venue from Los Angeles to a federal court in Manhattan, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee based her ruling on the fact that the incident took place in New York and therefore a majority of the witnesses are located there, along with much of the potential evidence. 

The personal injury lawyers at Bashian & Papantoniou are dedicated to protecting our clients who have wrongfully suffered physical injury, serious physical injury, emotional distress, battery or who are victims of intentional torts.  Our firm is comprised of skilled litigators who are not afraid to take a case to trial. Our excellence in the court room and at the negotiating table provides our clients with the results that they expect and deserve.

If you, a family member or a loved one have been injured, including bodily injury, sickness or disease resulting from libel, slander, malicious prosecution, someone else’s neglect, false arrest or false imprisonment, please  contact our office . We will ensure that your legal rights are protected and that you receive just compensation for your injuries.