lawsuit
 

Check out the 11-25-03 entry:

http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Docket2.htm


Chuck Gadd
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua

lawsuit
 

Chuck Gadd wrote:

Check out the 11-25-03 entry:
http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Docket2.htm

I love it when appropriate things happen to deserving people.

(is that legally sanitized enough to avoid a lawsuit?)


--
www.ericschreiber.com

lawsuit
 

"Dave Engle" wrote in message ...
It looks to me like Robert H's motion to dismiss was the only one not
granted. Anyone know why that might be?

I'm not a lawyer, but here's my interpretation of what the judge said.

Basically, the motions to dismiss were based on issues of personal
jurisdiction. The court in New York doesn't have the right to try a
case against people who don't live there, conduct business there,
visit there, etc. Even if someone does have a connection to New York,
it has to have some relation to the legal case for the court to exert
jurisdiction.

In Robert H's case, the judge decided that the Aqua Botanic website
was interactive enough to consitute doing business in New York, since
New York residents may use it. Given that one of Novak's complaints
related specifically to the use of his trademark on the website, that
provided enough of a link for the court to assert jurisdiction.

For everyone else, the link between the defendants and New York was
too tenuous. The websites belonging to other defendants were not
interactive (in the sense of hosting a forum or selling product) and
thus didn't trigger jurisdiction.

- Jim

lawsuit
 

Agree. Once the full text of the Judge's order became available, the
rationale you stated became clear.

--
Bob Alston

bobalston9 AT aol DOT com
"Jim Seidman" wrote in message
om...
"Dave Engle" wrote in message
...
It looks to me like Robert H's motion to dismiss was the only one not
granted. Anyone know why that might be?

I'm not a lawyer, but here's my interpretation of what the judge said.

Basically, the motions to dismiss were based on issues of personal
jurisdiction. The court in New York doesn't have the right to try a
case against people who don't live there, conduct business there,
visit there, etc. Even if someone does have a connection to New York,
it has to have some relation to the legal case for the court to exert
jurisdiction.

In Robert H's case, the judge decided that the Aqua Botanic website
was interactive enough to consitute doing business in New York, since
New York residents may use it. Given that one of Novak's complaints
related specifically to the use of his trademark on the website, that
provided enough of a link for the court to assert jurisdiction.

For everyone else, the link between the defendants and New York was
too tenuous. The websites belonging to other defendants were not
interactive (in the sense of hosting a forum or selling product) and
thus didn't trigger jurisdiction.

- Jim