Penal Code section 148(a) Resisting Arrest aims to secure the physical wellbeing of officers, and encourages only compelling, legally applicable examinations of civilians. Lamentably, it isn't unprecedented for some officers to abuse this statute by rebuffing people who show any little sign of disobedience towards the officer. This is a serious and recurring issue all throughout California, with some counties and cities experiencing more of this abuse of power than others. For instance, Ventura county law enforcers are infamous for incarcerating civilians if the officer senses even the slightest amount of hesitation from the civilian. In many situations, this results in a gross and negligent abuse of power, originating from misinterpreted ideas of what the Penal Code 148(a) entails.
According to Penal Code 148(a)(1), any person who "obstinately" opposes or delays any law enforcement agent is blameworthy of a crime. They must demonstrate the following past a sensible uncertainty:
Most importantly, there does not need to be an intention of hurting the officer, a mere demonstration of knowingly resisting an officer is sufficient. As such, a prosecutor does not have to demonstrate that the defendant expected to commit a crime or even to cause any injury to the officer. Taking all of these elements into consideration, it can become murky and difficult to understand where to draw the line between officer aggression and defendant resistance. To help illustrate these, here are just a few examples:
There are several avenues of defense that a skilled Glendale criminal defense attorney will utilize in order to defend their client in situations of unlawful arrest. A few examples of these defenses include: the use of excessive force or police brutality, acting in self-defense, or being wrongfully accused of a crime. Which path is best for your particular case is something your lawyer will be able to determine with you. If you feel that you or a loved one have experienced a wrongful accusation of violating Penal Code 148(a), or been the victim of police brutality or misconduct, please give us a call at (310) 943-1171 to speak to a defense attorney specialist, or send us an email with a description of your case at [email protected].
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, San Bernardino, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
Beginning January 2018, recreational use of marijuana became legal in California, allowing persons 21 years and older to possess up to one ounce, or 28.5 grams of marijuana. The law was a direct result of Proposition 64 the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which was approved in November of 2017. This new law does not change any statues or regulations pertaining to medicinal marijuana use, nor does it completely legalize marijuana use in every situation. As all laws, there are some strings attached that you should be aware of as a consumer.
The legalization of marijuana in California does not extend indefinitely, and you can still get incriminated for surpassing its limits. According to California Health and Safety Code § 11357, those limits are as follows:
HS 11357 Possession Offense
Type of Offense
Penalty Incurred
Possession of marijuana and/or concentrated cannabis by individuals under the age of 21
The gradual process of legalizing marijuana in California reached its climax in January of 2018, when marijuana became legalized. Once this new law came into effect, it changed the ways that some laws apply and affect cases surrounding the possession, utilization, and acquisition of marijuana. On the other hand, many procedures and statutes have not changed despite the legalization of marijuana. One such instance is the penalty one may accrue if they are caught with marijuana in their car while driving, which is detailed by the California Vehicle Code 23222(b) Driving In Possession of Marijuana.
California Vehicle Code 23222(b) maintains that it is illegal to possess marijuana while conducting a vehicle. In order to be charged with this, a law enforcement agent must be able to prove that you were in illegal possession of marijuana while driving. Thus, there are three primary components at play in this code. The keywords here are illegal, possession and driving. If even one of those three things does not apply, then you cannot be charged with violating California Vehicle Code 23222(b). However, it should be noted that just because one of those three elements may not apply, does not mean that you cannot be charged with violating another statute or law. For instance, California Health and Safety Code 11357(b) may still apply to you. Also, if it is determined that you were driving under the influence of marijuana, you can also be charged with a DUI pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a)(b).
California Penal Code § 1000 indicates an arrangement commonly known as a pretrial diversion or a deferred entry of judgment, in which a qualifying drug defendant requests to get their case put on hold for a set period of time while the defendant completes a state-approved drug rehabilitation or educational program. Penal Code § 1000 is very important because it enables some defendants to avoid conviction entirely with the deferred entry of judgment, or DEJ for short (this is also referred to as a pretrial diversion).
Whether DEJ applies for any given case will depend on several factors, such as age, previous criminal history, and the crime in question. For instance, DEJ is more restricted for adults, applying only for certain types of drug offenses. On the other hand, for juveniles, deferred entry of judgment usually applies for most first-time felonies.
First, a defendant asks to complete an approved program in any county in California. The court determines the eligibility of the defendant and, once approved, provides the defendant with a set period of time in which to complete the program. California courts have both . A list of state-approved programs can be found at the courthouse in which the hearing took place. All of these programs will assess the defendant and must ensure a minimum of 20 hours of drug education or rehabilitation. At the end of the program, an assessment report must be provided to the court, detailing the defendant’s progress and successful completion of the program.
In California, there are many different health and safety codes and statutes in place to protect citizens. Some of these focus on illegal substances, such as methamphetamine, and the consequences one may face for possessing them.
Being accused of possessing meth is a serious crime because it is a controlled substance under the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Under California Health and Safety Code Section 11377, the mere possession of meth is considered a misdemeanor, which involves a penalty of up to $1,000 and a year in prison. However, these repercussions can be far more severe, depending on how the drug was found and whether or not the prosecutors determined if there was an intent to sell or distribute the drug. Therefore, it stands to reason that you should be aware of the ways in which a prosecutor can prove meth possession. So...
In order for a prosecutor to convict you of meth possession under Health and Safety Code Section 11377, they must be able to prove or show beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) you had actual possession of the drug in question; (2) you knew the drug was methamphetamine, a controlled substance, and (3) you had possession of usable amounts of the drug, i.e. more than just trace amounts of methamphetamine.
In California, anyone who owns property has a legal obligation to keep it safe from hazards. When determining who is liable in a premises liability or slip and fall case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant(s) had ownership, possession, and control of the premises. The individual(s) who owns, possesses, or controls the premises is the one responsible for any injuries arising from a hazardous or dangerous condition of the premises. Therefore, without the crucial element of "control over the premises", no duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury on the property can be found.
In California, the owner, operator, and/or lessor of property owe a duty to visitors to ensure that the property is in a reasonably safe condition. Furthermore, another crucial element in premises liability cases is the element of "foreseeability" .The foreseeability of harm is a prerequisite for the recovery of damages. The foreseeability of the danger establishes the duty owed.
If property owner(s) fail to properly maintain the premises and someone suffers injury as a result, they may be liable for damages under premise liability law. As in any other negligence action, the injured person must establish the following: (1) the existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to use due care; (2) a breach of this legal duty; and (3) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. If you or a loved one suffered damages associated with an accident which occurred on someone else’s property, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries. We invite you to contact our at (310) 943-1171, for a free consultation.
Being injured in a slip and fall can leave you with immense pain. Often, not knowing what steps to take in the immediate aftermath can result in prolonged and unnecessary suffering. In order to strengthen your chances of receiving fair compensation that helps you recover, be sure to:
California Identity Theft , under Penal Code 530 PC usually occurs when: a defendant unlawfully gained unauthorized access to a computer’s information or someone else’s sensitive personal information and used that information for financial or personal gain. This can be achieved by creating a credit card or opening up an account under someone else’s identity in order to obtain money or items which they are not entitled to.
As discussed above, identity theft under California Penal Code Section 530 occurs when a person unlawfully and intentionally acquires and retains possession of personal identifying information of another person. In other words, identity theft occurs when a person uses your personal identifying information without permission to commit fraud or other theft related crimes. Identity theft crimes can include obtaining a consumers:
If one cannot duplicate a phone number or street address, then why should one have the power to duplicate a domain name? Domain names, similar to words and symbols, can be used to identify a seller’s products and distinguish them from the products of another, and are thus viewed as trademarks. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that a business must use its domain name to sell goods or services in order to protect the name — even if a competitor starts to use the name after you registered the domain. In other words, merely reserving a domain name isn't enough. Thus, its important to register your domain name, because if your domain name has a trademark, the URL has protection under the USPTO.
The Trademark Act of 1946 (“Lanham Act”) prohibits uses of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion about the source of a product or service. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a). Moreover, to establish a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must establish that defendant’s use of a mark is confusing similar to plaintiff’s. Id. The main area of inquiry in trademark infringement cases is whether the similarity of the marks is likely to confuse customers about the source of a product or service. ., 174 F.3d 1036, 1062 (1999).
Judgement or settlement which exceeds policy limits after denying a settlement offer within policy limits and the excess settlement rule. California Court of Appeals ruled that primary insurance companies are responsible for paying all losses in excess of policy limits after denying a within-limits settlement offer, regardless of whether the excess loss arises out of a verdict, judgment or a settlement.
The Second District California Court of Appeal’s August 5, 2016 opinion in Ace American Ins. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. found that “where the insured or excess insurer has actually contributed to an excess settlement, [the insured or excess insurer] may allege that the primary insurer’s breach of the duty to accept reasonable settlement offers resulted in damages in the form of the excess settlement.” The lack of a final judgment was immaterial, as there was “no persuasive reason to hold that the [policyholder] or its assignee, [the excess insurance company], must suffer that loss with no remedy simply because the case reached an eventual settlement instead of being litigated through trial.”
Infraction
Drug counseling and community service hours for minors and a fine of $100 for those 18 and older
Owning more than 28.5 grams of marijuana and/or more than 8 grams of concentrated cannabis for minors (under 18 years of age)
Infraction
Drug counseling and community service hours
Having marijuana and/or concentrated cannabis in a K-12 institution while a minor (under 18 years of age)
Infraction
Drug counseling and community service hours
Owning more than 28.5 grams of marijuana and/or more than 8 grams of concentrated cannabis (18 years of age and up)
Misdemeanor
A maximum sentence of 6 months in county jail as well as a $500 fee
Having marijuana and/or concentrated cannabis in a K-12 institution (18 years of age and up)
Misdemeanor
Up to a $250 fee for the first offense, with subsequent offenses incurring additional penalties
Possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana or more than 8 grams of concentrated cannabis (hashish) is still illegal under California’s Health and Safety Code 11357. The above chart summarizes the consequences one may face for having excessive amounts of marijuana. Typically, for adults these consequences are deemed misdemeanors and will usually result in a fine of no more than $500 and/or 6 months in county jail, while for minors the crime is merely an infraction and the penalties are to attend drug counseling sessions and community service hours.
Having marijuana on school grounds is also illegal: for adults it is a misdemeanor and for minors it is an infraction. The penalties for minors who commit this crime are identical to the penalties that a minor may face if they possess excessive amounts of marijuana. For adults, it will usually result in a $250 fee for the first offense. Bear in mind that possessing any amount of marijuana at all as a minor is still illegal even in California, and the consequences range from paying a fine to facing drug education or counseling programs and community service.
There are several legal defenses that a skilled Los Angeles marijuana defense attorney can provide in cases that involve charges of illegal marijuana possession in California. These defenses include:
-You didn’t own the marijuana in question
-You were not aware that you had any marijuana
-The marijuana in question was procured in an illegal search or seizure
If you or someone you know is accused of violating California Health and Safety Code 11357 or California Vehicle Code 23222(b) illegal to possess marijuana while driving a vehicle we welcome you to give us a call at (310) 943-1171 to speak to a defense attorney for a free consultation.
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. Our Los Angeles litigation lawyers do not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at our office.
An experienced Glendale marijuana lawyer will understand that there are several powerful avenues that may be explored in order to demonstrate your innocence before the law. Some of those possible options are:
The consequences of being convicted of violating California Vehicle Code Section 23222(b) include a fee of up to $100 plus court costs. We can help you avoid all of those. Give us a toll free call today to speak to one of our attorneys at (310) 943-1171 or email us at [email protected]
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, San Bernardino, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
Upon finishing the DEJ program, the court has an obligation to dismiss the drug charges against you. As such, the benefits of completing the program are that:
Throughout your participation in the court-sanctioned program, the court may determine that your efforts or participation are not satisfactory, or that some other issue has come up. Any of these may disqualify your eligibility for the diversion program. Some of these reasons can include:
Basically, a defendant can be removed from the DEJ program if at any point they fail to complete the program satisfactorily or if they get convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving violence. In that case, the defendant will get dropped from the program and sentenced per the underlying charge(s).
There are two factors that are responsible for determining your eligibility for a DEJ. The first is the type of drug offense itself and the second is your previous criminal history.
According to California Penal Code § 1000, some drug offenses are eligible for deferred entry of judgment. Most often, these are:
*A ‘controlled substance’ refers most commonly to such drugs as Cocaine, Marijuana, Heroin, Methamphetamines, Ketamine, Ecstasy, Vicodin, Codeine, and GHB.
Your prior criminal history is the other major factor used to determine whether your case is eligible for a DEJ. The conditions are:
You should know that there are some strings attached with the deferred entry of judgment. It does require the defendant to plead guilty, with the condition that the court does not enter judgment. Thus, the final sentencing, or conviction, is never finalized. The case is therefore left in a limbo period, or deferment. During this period, the defendant must then successfully complete the appropriate, state-approved program. The court will look over the details of the case again and if everything was correctly done, the charge against the defendant will be dismissed.
The details surrounding the deferred entry of judgment can get complicated and murky. We can help you to assess if a pretrial diversion or a DEJ is possible given the details of your case. To speak to an Glendale criminal defense attorney, please call our firm at (310) 943-1171 or email us at [email protected].
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, San Bernardino, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
While the burden to prove these things falls on the State, you should be prepared with ample evidence to show otherwise, just in case they do manage to produce sufficient evidence in the courtroom. Bear in mind there are two different kinds of possession for which you may be convicted. The first kind is actual possession, which entails that the authorities discovered the drug on your person, meaning in your pocket, clothes, or bag. The second kind is constructive possession, which simply means that the authorities found the drug in a place that you have access to, such as your house, car, or office. If you did not expressly admit to having knowledge of the illegal substance of methamphetamine being in your possession, the prosecutor will have to meticulously prove that through evidence. Evidence can include the way you behaved or reacted during the search or arrest process. As an example, if you attempted to hide or get rid of the drug, then they could reasonably assume that you had knowledge of the drug and its illegality. However, assumptions can work against the prosecutor as well.
One of the first things your lawyer will do is to determine whether the police encounter that led up to the discovery of the meth was legal. In other words, the prosecutor cannot use evidence against you in a court of law if it was obtained illegally. Remember that the police must adhere to strict laws which are upheld by the United States Constitution, including when they stop and search vehicles, when they enter into private property, and even when they arrest or detain someone on suspicion of illegal substance possession. Should a law enforcement agent knowingly, or inadvertently, violate the suspect’s constitutional rights, then your lawyer can request to suppress the evidence being presented against you.
There are many different avenues and possibilities that a lawyer can explore with you in order to best gauge what your next optimal move will be. Getting charged with possession of a controlled substance may seem overwhelming and getting out of that situation even more so, but we will guide you through the criminal justice process and get you the best possible result. We invite you to give KAASS Law a toll free call at (310) 943-1171 to have a free consultation with our skilled defense attorneys.
Common causes of slip and fall accidents occur when property owners fail to exercise reasonable care in preventing slip or fall hazards, such as:
Property owners are legally responsible to inspect the property for any hazard risks and maintain the property in a safe manner. If there are any latent or concealed perils on the land, the possessor is under a duty to exercise ordinary care either to make the condition reasonably safe for those coming onto the land or to give such persons a warning adequate to enable them to avoid injury. Failure to repair or fix a slip hazard, resulting in a preventable invitee or customer injury, is an act of negligence.
Premises liability claims against government entities, due to injuries sustained on public property are often very challenging to litigate. Government entities enjoy greater protections against premises liability claims than do ordinary private persons and businesses. In California, to bring a successful premises liability claim against a government entity, one must prove an additional element that does not exist in premises liability claims against private entities - under Government Code section 835, the injured party must prove either: (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. Are you wondering how to prepare for a slip and fall claim? If you were injured due to a slip and fall accident, our knowledgeable Los Angeles personal injury attorneys can help you get the compensation you deserve. Call us at (310) 943-1171, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a free consultation tailored to the specifics of your case, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.
Slip and fall accidents require a lawyer for a number of reasons, including the complexity of a given case. Every slip and fall case is unique and may require a alternative approach in order to successful recover on a claim or lawsuit. Most common slip and fall accidents are usually caused by the following:
The absences of warnings or caution signs situated near the hazard that caused you to slip and fall, can be a indicator of the property manager’s negligence. However, there are specific elements that must be proven and evidence that must show. Such as that the property manager failed to put a warning sign within a reasonable time of discovering the hazard or failed to notice the hazard within a reasonable time. The complexities of this type of claim can make it difficult for you to fight alone. Let us do the legwork on your claim so you can focus on your recovery. If you were injured due to a slip and fall accident our knowledgeable personal injury attorneys can help you get the compensation you deserve. Call us at (310) 943-1171, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a free consultation tailored to the specifics of your case, our attorneys at KAASS LAW speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.
Felony identity theft charges in California carry punishment of 3 years in state prison, court order to pay compensatory damages to the victim(s) that suffered damages, other fines, parole, and/or probation. Call now for a free consultation and case review at (310) 943-1171. If you or someone you love got these accusations of identity theft in California, it is important to understand the penalties that accompany a identity theft conviction. We invite you to contact our Glendale criminal lawyers for a free consultation and case review. Call our office at (310) 943-1171, our attorneys at KAASS Law speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office.
KAASS LAW helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock. Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
To protect your business or brand from infringement, you may want to trademark your domain name in addition to a logo, slogan, or design. Merely, registering a domain name does not give you trademark rights, rather it identifies your website and generally will not prevent others from using the name. If you trademark your domain name, you have legal protection if a third party uses your trademarked name. You can file a trademark infringement action against the infringing party and recover money damages, financial losses, and other damages you might have incurred.
The domain should function as a "source indicator." It must convey to whoever sees the URL what products or services are behind the name. A domain qualifies as a trademark when it is a "source indicator." Your domain must convey the products or services associated with the name to whoever sees the URL. Not all domain names can be registered as trademarks. The PTO is particular about what can be registered as a domain name.
Consumer confusion occurs when another company has a domain name close in spelling to your domain. The other company's name might different by one letter. Generally, consumer confusion matters only if a domain name that's similar to the one you want to use is a protected trademark. To be protected, a trademark must be distinctive. If the trademark owner has been able to register a name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it is probably distinctive. The dispositive question in trademark infringement cases is whether the similarity of the marks is likely to confuse customers about the source of a product or service. Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. V. Epix, Inc., 304 F. 3d 936, 941 (2002).
Initial interest confusion occurs when the defendant’s use of plaintiff’s trademark sways consumers towards their own product or service by capturing “initial consumer attention.” Brookfield at 1045. In the context of website domain, the defendant’s unauthorized use of the trademark confuses consumers who expect to find the plaintiff’s product or service at that web address. Interstellar at 942. Although actual confusion is not required, plaintiff must prove a probability of confusion, as the mere possibility is not enough. Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 506 F.3d 1165, 1176.
To evaluate the likelihood of confusion, including initial interest confusion, the Sleekcraft factors considered are:
(1) the similarity of the marks;
(2) the relatedness or proximity of the two companies' products or services;
(3) the strength of the registered mark;
(4) the marketing channels used;
(5) the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser in selecting goods;
(6) the accused infringers' intent in selecting its mark;
(7) evidence of actual confusion; and
(8) the likelihood of expansion in product lines.
Courts consider these factors within the totality of the circumstances through the eyes of the “reasonably prudent consumer” in the marketplace, not a person with a legally trained mind. Dreamwerks Production Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127, 1129 (1998).
In the context of website domain, courts have held that the three most important Sleekcraft factors in evaluating a likelihood of confusion are (1) the similarity of the marks, (2) the relatedness of the goods or services, and (3) the parties’ simultaneous use of the Web as a marketing channel. Interstellar at 942.
No one factor is to be considered conclusive and the relative importance of each individual factor will be case-specific. Compare Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1061 (holding that use of the domain name “moviebuff.com” violated plaintiff’s trademark rights in the mark “MovieBuff,” as consumer confusion is likely to result from the relatedness of the products and the companies’ simultaneous use of the Web as a marketing and advertising tool) with Interstellar at 943 (finding that domain name “epix.com” for website showcasing creator’s electronic pictures did not infringe the trademark “EPIX,” used in connection with printed circuit boards and computer programs, because there was a lack of relation between the products and both parties marketed to a different consumer base through the web).
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FDTA) allows a trademark owner to obtain an injunction against another’s “commercial use in commerce” of a mark or trade name” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). “Commercial use in commerce” has been generally interpreted to mean use of mark in relation to any goods or services. Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 903 (2002).
If you believe someone is infringing on your trademark or have questions regarding trademark registration, copyright, or any other intellectual property related question, we invite you to contact our office and speak to an experienced Los Angeles trademark lawyer at (310) 943-1171.
In order words, in the event that a policyholder(s) do not have excess insurance, policyholders should argue that their first party insurance company or primary insurer who rejected a within-limits settlement offer is obligated to pay the full amount of any subsequent settlement which exceeds that insured's policy limits. There is no reason why the first party insured should be forced to contribute or pay a settlement of which first party insured could recover by filing at first party bad faith action against their primary insurance company.
California insurance bad faith actions arise when insurance company breaches the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing. Insurance companies must, unreasonably or without proper cause, act or fail to act in a manner that deprives the insured of the benefits of the policy. It is not a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. However, it is not necessary for the insurer to intend to deprive the insured of the benefits of the policy. Generally, the term bad faith for insurance purposes means an insurance company:
The court found that when an insurer's failure to reasonably settle a claim within policy limits, after primary or "first party" insurance rejected a within-limits settlement offer and there is a judgement against their insured/policyholder, whether by settlement or verdict, the first party insurance company must pay any excess monies, whether through jury verdict, settlement, or judgment. Policy limits demands can be a powerful tool for plaintiffs' insurance lawyers and can cause headaches for claims adjusters. While, it all depends on the circumstances surrounding the claim or issue, an insurer that misses an opportunity for a reasonable settlement of a claim against its insured can now be liable for the full amount of a later judgment, regardless of the policy limits. If you believe that your primary insurance company rejected a within-limits settlement offer and an later there was a subsequent settlement or judgement which exceeds your policy limits or you believe that your insurance company may be acting in bad faith, speak to one of our Los Angeles insurance lawyers for a free consultation and case review. Call our office at (310) 943-1171, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.