News and tips by and for staff providing reference services at the Newman Library, Baruch College (New York, NY).
Judge Scheidlin’s decision in the New York City “stop and frisk” case can be found at http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/750413/floyd-v-city-of-ny-liability.pdf. The judge found the policy to be unconstitutional. The decision was announced this morning. (It is 198 pages long.)
I found the decision published on WNYC shortly after it was announced.
I had an inquiry for the complaint filed by unpaid interns who have filed a class action lawsuit again Fox Searchlight. The interns worked on the film “Black Swan.” Their lawsuit was filed last fall in federal district court in Manhattan. I found the complaint posted on the Internet. The lawsuit generated a lot of interest, when it was filed, and many are interested in it. PACER, which requires an account, is a usual source of complaints, but sometimes they are posted on the Internet.
There is a great guest blog post by Carl Malamud at BoingBoing this week (“Liberating America’s Secret, For-Pay Laws”) about efforts to make standards and codes referred to in state and federal law freely available:
By making things like the National Fuel and Gas Code, the standard for safety in wood and metal ladders, or the standards for safety and hygiene in water supplies readily available to all without restriction, we make society better. People can read the standards and learn, they can improve upon them by making searchable databases or better navigational tools, they can build new kinds of businesses. Innovation and education are just two of the benefits of opening up this world, but at the root are basic issues of democracy and justice. We cannot tell citizens to obey laws that are only available for the rich to read. The current system acts as a poll tax on access to justice, a deliberate rationing and restriction of information critical to our public safety. That system is morally wrong and it is legally unconstitutional.
We now have access to West’s new platform for their traditional print material, called WestlawNext Patron Access. This will be replacing our print subscriptions, which have been cancelled (and were not getting much used).
In this platform, you can search United States federal and state laws, court cases, rules, regulations, selected forms, and topical secondary publications in one search field. Advanced search works best after selecting jurisdiction(s) or content. West Key Numbers, under Tools, offers detailed index of case law materials.
One unfortunate aspect of this database is that searching will retrieve content not in our subscription, which may lead to confusion. We have not lost any content compared to the print subscriptions we had.
Training is being arranged for early December.
Here’s the text of the recently passed New York Marriage Equality Act.
Findlaw.com has a recent finding by the 9th Circuit court regarding a case in which a company purchased keywords including a competitor’s trademark for Internet searches. Here’s a summary, based on the information found on Findlaw.com
“Network Automation (“Network”) and Advanced Systems Concepts (“Systems”) are both in the business of selling job scheduling and management software, and both advertise on the Internet. Network sells its software under the mark AutoMate, while Systems’ product is sold under the registered trademark ActiveBatch. Network decided to advertise its product by purchasing certain keywords, such as “ActiveBatch,” which when keyed into various search engines, most prominently Google and Microsoft Bing, produce a results page showing “www.NetworkAutomation.com” as a sponsored link. Systems’ objection to Network’s use of its trademark to interest viewers in Network’s website gave rise to this trademark infringement action.”
“The district court was confronted with the question whether Network’s use of ActiveBatch to advertise its products was a clever and legitimate use of readily available technology, such as Google’s AdWords, or a likely violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. The court found a likelihood of initial interest confusion by applying the eight factors established more than three decades ago in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir.1979), and reasoning that the three most important factors in “cases involving the Internet” are (1) the similarity of the marks; (2) the relatedness of the goods; and (3) the marketing channel used. The court therefore issued a preliminary injunction against Network’s use of the mark ActiveBatch.
Mindful that the sine qua non of trademark infringement is consumer confusion, and that the Sleekcraft factors are but a nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to determining the likelihood of consumer confusion, the 9th Circuit “concludes that Systems’ showing of a likelihood of confusion was insufficient to support injunctive relief. ” Therefore, the 9th Circuit vacated the injunction and reverse and remand (sent it back to the lower court.)
1. I’ve just published a new US Government Documents Guide as a companion to my three other law guides (Law, Parts 1 & 2 and Legislative History). I’ve tried to integrate the four guides so that they work together w/o being redundant. The Gov Docs guide is general; it refers to, but does not duplicate, more specific guides, such as Frank’s US Census Data guide.
2. The U.S. Dept. of Justice has just released new horizontal merger guidelines (press release and link guidelines ). According to the press release, “these changes mark the first major revision of the merger guidelines in 18 years”.
3. A new title is listed on the Law Guide, Part 2: The Law Student’s Guide to Free Legal Research on the Web . This guide is produced by Sarah Glassmeyer, Faculty Services and Outreach Librarian and an Assistant Professor of Law at Valparaiso University School of Law, and is sponsored by Justia.com and Cornell’s Legal Information Institute.