Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

GHALEB MOHAMMED ISHAQ HIJAZI v. ATLAS ECONOMIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (WASHINGTON, DC)
1:09-CV-01123
FILED: 6/18/2009

Businesses are often far too informal in establishing business relationships with third parties, particularly as they relate to the online world. We constantly see “informal” collaborative relationships in which the ownership of intellectual property, the rights and obligations of the parties, and even the status of the relationships are not clearly defined by contract. Inevitably, when there is a falling out and the relationship draws to a close, there is often a significant disagreement as to many of the key terms that should have been hashed out in advance in a written contract prior to the relationship being undertaken.

Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the country of Jordan and is a researcher and financial manager educated at the University of Jordan and the Arab Academy for Banking and Financial Sciences. The Defendants include the “Cato Institute”, a Washington, DC based think tank. The parties entered into some sort of an “independent contractor” relationship involving the Plaintiff’s work and related website, and the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, including the Cato Institute, maliciously and willfully converted the Plaintiff’s property, including his website, for their own use.

Count one alleges copyright infringement, count two alleges unfair competition under the trademark laws, count three alleges common law unfair competition, count four alleges trespass to channels, count five alleges unjust enrichment, count six alleges tortious interference with business opportunity, count seven alleges tortious interference with contract, count eight alleges conversion, and count nine alleges violations of trade secrets. The Plaintiff is requesting an award of compensatory damages, triple damages, punitive damages, the entry of an injunction, and the entry of an order transferring domain names to the Plaintiff, as well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1328.