Latest news with #Defendant
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
Karen Read seeking dismissal of most counts pending against her in wrongful death lawsuit
Her attorneys stressed that Advertisement Lawyers for the O'Keefe family fired back in a filing opposing the dismissal motion, noting that discovery in the high-profile lawsuit Advertisement The family's emotional distress claims 'require a fact-intensive analysis which is not ripe for deciding at this early stage of the lawsuit and without adequate discovery,' the lawyers said. They added that 'traditional' emotional distress damages are 'expressly disallowed as a component of wrongful death damages,' hence the additional counts. The plaintiffs' attorneys said the O'Keefe family has 'suffered and continues to suffer immense emotional trauma from this wrongful death, which has been further intensified by the unyielding barrage of harassment and ridicule by Read and her supporters targeting the grieving family.' A Norfolk Superior Court jury Prosecutors had alleged that Read backed her Lexus SUV in a drunken rage into a Boston police officer, early on Jan. 29, 2022, after dropping him off outside a Canton home following a night of bar-hopping. Read's criminal attorneys said she was framed and that O'Keefe entered the property, owned at the time by a fellow Boston officer, where he was fatally beaten and possibly mauled by a German Shepherd before his body was planted on the front lawn. The allegations in the lawsuit track with the government's case in the criminal trial, and the O'Keefe family's attorneys said in court papers last week that Read, when she initially returned to O'Keefe's residence in the predawn hours of Jan. 29, 2022, woke up and traumatized his niece, then 14. Advertisement Read woke up O'Keefe's niece 'in a panic stating that something had happened to JJ and that [the niece's] surrogate father was dead,' the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote. In the niece's presence, Read chose not to call 911 but instead called " various acquaintances proclaiming, among other things, that JJ never came home and that he may have been hit by a snowplow,' the plaintiffs said. 'Thereafter, at or about 5 a.m., Read departed JJ's residence leaving [the niece]frightened, traumatized, and alone.' In the dismissal motion, Read's lawyers said the civil complaint includes no allegation that O'Keefe's niece 'directly observed' the alleged collision, nor did she 'observe the Decedent at any point thereafter.' The niece's 'alleged perception of death, as alleged, was based on conversations with the Defendant and there is no precedent for one to claim emotional distress as a bystander merely by learning via conversation that a loved one has been injured or passed away.' The parties are requesting a hearing in Plymouth Superior Court on the motion to dismiss the civil counts, records show. The next hearing currently scheduled in the case is a status conference on Sept. 22, according to court documents. Material from prior Globe stories was used in this report. Travis Andersen can be reached at
USA Today
11-08-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Baylor University sues Boston University for trademark infringement on BU logo
Baylor University has sued Boston University for the private university's use of the interlocking "BU" logo design. The lawsuit, which was filed in Texas federal court on Aug. 8, is against the Trustees of Boston University and for federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition and false designation of origin under the Trademark Act of 1946, Texas statutory trademark infringement and common law trademark infringement. "While Baylor does not generally object to Defendant's use of the initials 'BU' in connection with its university, it does object to Defendant's adoption and use of a specific interlocking BU design that is identical or strikingly similar to Baylor's federally registered marks," states the lawsuit, which was obtained by the USA TODAY Sports Network. REQURIED READING: Scavenger hunt to find college football's next national champion coach turns up key names The lawsuit states that Boston University's interlocking "BU" mark is "essentially identical and/or confusingly similar to Baylor's federally registered Interlocking BU." The school is asking the court to require Boston University to "destroy all goods, packaging, signage, advertisements, internet postings and advertisements, and any other materials bearing or using an interlocking BU mark" and for Baylor to recover the costs of this lawsuit, with interest, and to receive any further financial relief that is determined. The lawsuit mentions that Baylor became aware of a promotion and sale of three hats by Boston University's campus spirit store in 2018 that used "an essentially identical and/or confusingly similar interlocking BU" logo. It said when Baylor when notified Boston University of this "in or around December 2021," the school "did not cease use" of the logo. REQUIRED READING: Jon Gruden would 'die to coach in the SEC' as he looks to return to football Looking at Boston University's website for the acceptable branding logos for the university and the university's athletic department, the interlocking "BU" logo that the lawsuit is referring to does not appear. The university's athletic department page does, however, show a "BU" logo with the letters side by side rather than interlocking. The interlocking logo does appear in several offerings on Boston University's Campus Store website and another website that sells Boston University-licensed merchandise, as alluded to in the lawsuit. Notably, the lawsuit mentions that the interlocking "BU" logo that Baylor is seeking removal of is used by several of Boston University's club sports programs, which look to be sponsored by Boston University's Fitness and Recreation Center and not its athletic department. This isn't the first time that both universities have taken up this matter legally. As noted in the lawsuit, Baylor applied to register the interlocking "BU" logo design with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1987, but Boston University opposed the application. Both universities would settle a year later, when they signed an agreement that stated both universities "must be able to coexist by using the letters 'BU' for their respective universities." Baylor University, which competes in the Big 12 Conference, was founded in 1849. Boston University, which competes in the Patriot League and Hockey East, was founded in 1839. USA TODAY Sports' Scooby Axson contributed to this story
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Yahoo
Former 21-year-old soldier stationed in Texas pleads guilty to hacking, extortion scheme
TEXAS (WHNT) — A former U.S. Army soldier stationed at Fort Cavazos entered a guilty plea in federal court Tuesday. According to federal documents and the U.S. Department of Justice, 21-year-old Cameron John Wagenius used online accounts associated with the nickname 'kiberphant0m' to conspire with 3 other people to defraud at least 10 victim organizations. The DOJ said Wagenius did so by obtaining login credentials for the organization's protected computer networks between April 2023 and December 18, 2024. Huntsville International Airport sets monthly passenger traffic record for June The DOJ said the conspirators obtained the credentials using a hacking tool called SSH Brute, among other names. The DOJ said they used Telegram group chats to transfer the stolen credentials and talk about gaining access to victim companies' networks. The release says all of this happened while Wagenius was on active duty with the U.S. Army. 'After data was stolen, the conspirators extorted the victim organizations both privately and in public forums. The extortion attempts included threats to post the stolen data on cybercrime forums such as BreachForums and The conspirators offered to sell stolen data for thousands of dollars via posts on these forums. They successfully sold at least some of this stolen data and also used stolen data to perpetuate other frauds, including SIM-swapping. In total, Wagenius and his co-conspirators attempted to extort at least $1 million from victim data owners.' U.S. Department of Justice The plea agreement says Wagenius and the co-conspirators, after gaining access to the victim's accounts, threatened to leak the stolen data unless a ransom was paid. From there, the federal document says the conspirators worked to gain access to 'hundreds of thousands' of sensitive business and customer records. This information included non-content call and text history records, telecommunication identifying information and other personally identifiable information. Some examples of the messages sent to the victims are listed below, per federal documents. 'At least on or about April 23, 2023, until at least June 16, 2023, Defendant, Co-Conspirator-1 and others participated in a Telegram group chat. The chat members repeatedly discussed stealing computer credentials, including through brute force attacks used to guess username and password combinations, and transferred stolen credentials among themselves.' DOJ Plea Agreement Document '[I]n or about May 2024, Defendant and Co-Conspirator-1 accessed the computer systems of Victim-1, a telecommunications company located overseas, and stole information pertaining to hundreds of thousands of Victim-1's customers. This stolen information included International Mobile Subscriber Identity, SIM card numbers, maskerkey, and other information needed to successfully clone SIM cards.' DOJ Plea Agreement Document '[I[n or about August and September 2024, Defendant, Co-Conspirator-1, Co-Conspirator-2, and Co-Conspirator-3 accessed the protected computer systems of Victim-3, a tecnology company located in the United States and stole information pertaining to thousands of Victim-2's customers, including telephone numbers belonging to real people who were Victim-2's customers. Victim-2 was a telecommunications company located in the United States, and some of Vicitm-2's stolen data was hosted on Victim-3's computer systems located in Texas and North Carolina.' DOJ Plea Agreement Document 'Defendant and others publicly and privately extorted victims by threatening to sell or otherwise distribute their stolen data unless the victims paid ransoms. They did so through online posts on online cybercrim forums catering to criminals, such as BreachForums and Telegram channels dedicated to online frauds and other cybercrimes; direct messages on Telegram; and other online platforms such as X (formerly known as Twitter). Some of these posts and messages offered to sell the data in exchange for fiat currency and cryptocurrency, while others attempted to extort the victim companies, requesting payment in order to avoid publication of the stolen data. Some posts also published sample data stolen from the victims. The platforms on which these posts were made could be accessed from computers located anywhere in the world, including the Western District of Washington.' DOJ Plea Agreement Document '[O]n or about October 22, 2024, Defendant contacted Victim-2 and wrote, 'If I'm not contacted all 358+ [gigabytes] of data on the [Victim-2] network will be released.' Defendant sent this message, which was transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce, as part of Defendant's efforts to extort a ransom payment from Victim-2. DOJ Plea Agreement Document '[O]n or about November 6, 2024, Defendant sent multiple emails to Victim-4, a telecommunications company located in the United States, sharing sample stolen data and threatening to leak more online unless he was paid '500k USD in the form of cryptocurrency.' Defendant stated, '[i]n the event of [Co-Conspirator-2's] arrest I was to takeover negotiations.' DOJ Plea Agreement Document The department said on Tuesday, Wagenius pleaded guilty to the following charges: Conspiracy to commit wire fraud Extortion in relation to computer fraud Aggravated identity theft. Tri-agency traffic enforcement targets excessive speeding on I-565 He is currently scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 6 and faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, a maximum penalty of five years in prison for extortion in relation to computer fraud, and a mandatory two-year sentence consecutive to any other prison time for aggravated identity theft. Wagenius was first indicted on December 18, 2024, in Seattle, Washington, federal court documents say. The plea agreement, obtained by News 19, says Wagenius waived his right to be charged by indictment as well as waived his right to have the incident tried before a jury. As a result of these waivers, he agreed to enter a guilty plea. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Metro
03-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Metro
Cash Me Outside girl Bhad Bhabie sued for $674,452.40
Rapper and Only Fans star Bhad Bhabie is being sued for $674,452.40 by American Express over credit card debt. In 2016 the then 13-year-old – real name – Danielle Peskowitz Bregoli appeared on Dr. Phil with her mum for a segment titled: 'I Want to Give Up My Car-Stealing, Knife-Wielding, Twerking 13-Year-Old Daughter Who Tried to Frame Me for a Crime.' The pair appeared on the show to discuss the teenager's behaviour, which also included stealing a crew member's car while the episode was being filmed. After getting annoyed by the audience laughing, Bregoli lashed out and declared her now infamous line challenging them to a fight: 'Catch me outside, how about that?' Her thick accent made it sound like she'd said 'cash me ousside, how bout dah', which quickly became a viral meme and inspired the creation of a song DJ Suede The Remix God that even made its way into the Billboard Hot 100. Following her appearance on the show Bregoli spent time at a facility for 'troubled teens' and was sentence to five years' probation in July 2017 after being arrested and pleaded guilty to charges of grand theft, marijuana possession, and filing a false police report. That same year she released her debut single These Heaux, which peaked at number 77 on the Billboard Hot 100 and made her the youngest female rapper to have a song enter the chart. Days after turning 18 she opened an OnlyFans account, bringing in a jaw-dropping $1,000,000 (£733,000) in just six hours. She went on to become the highest paid creator on the platform and currently earns around $1,489,374 each month. Despite her wealth, the 22-year-old is now being sued for failing to pay off her credit card. This week court documents filed show she's been sued by American Express, with the credit card company claiming that she breached a credit agreement by failing to make payments. 'Plaintiff extended credit to Defendant for purchases and/or cash advances by Defendants and/or persons acting with Defendants' permission on the American Express account XXXX‑XXXX‑X5000 (the 'Account'),' the filing read, as reported by People. 'Defendant promised to repay Plaintiff for all charges, fees, and interest on the Account by paying the balance in full every month or by making monthly payments.' The documents showed American Express said it made an agreement to extend credit to Bregoli on April, 21 2021, however, she stopped making payments around December 19 last year. The bank now alleges she owes the full balance and is seeking damages for breach of contract. In a statement to The Shade Room she hit back though, declaring: 'S*** not true. Where do they get this s*** from?' The suit comes just a few days after Bregoli told Interview magazine that working on OnlyFans was a 'good way to make a lot of money fast'. More Trending Earlier this year she said she had made about $75 million (£54 million) from OnlyFans – then proving her claims with receipts. In 2021, Billboard confirmed that she brought in $1m (£792,000) in just six hours which, at the time, broke a record for the platform which has become popular for adult content. Bregoli, who charges subscribers $23.99 (£18) a month, has said she spends her money on properties, cars and all type of s***'. Metro has contacted Danielle Bregoli for comment. Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. MORE: Charlize Theron, 49, details 'amazing' one-night stand with a 26-year-old MORE: Lorde shocks fans releasing album cover with nude photo of herself MORE: Green Day's Billie Joe Armstrong kicks fan off stage for playing Oasis song
India Gazette
01-07-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
Delhi HC stays operation of order to Amazon to pay Rs 339 crores to Beverly Hills Polo Club over trademark infringement
New Delhi [India], July 1 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted an interim stay on the operation of a single judge order imposing heavy damages and costs of over Rs 339 crores on Amazon in a case of trademark infringement. The High Court in February 2025 had directed Amazon Technology Inc. to pay the amount for infringement of the luxury brand Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) owned by Lifestyle Equities. The division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul passed the order granting an interim stay. Amazon had challenged the judgment passed by the single-judge bench on February 25, 2025. The High Court said that Amazon is not required to pay an amount for the interim stay. Though it would satisfy the damages if there is an order against it. The detailed order is to be uploaded by the High Court. Earlier, a Single judge had passed the judgment in favour of BHPC and against Amazon Technology Inc. The court had said, 'Considering the fact that the Defendants have indulged in deliberate and wilful infringement as also the various factors which are set out herein above, the royalties that the Plaintiffs would have earned based on their business plan which they clearly achieved in the first year is a reasonable measure of damages in the present case in order to compensate the Plaintiffs,' 'A decree of damages to the tune of $38.78 million, as of the date, equal to 336,02,87,000.00 is granted in favour of the Plaintiffs against Defendant No.1. (Amazon Technology Inc).' A single judge held in the judgment passed on February 25. The bench had also said that If the said amount is paid within three months, no interest would be liable to be paid. However, if the same is not paid by the Defendant, interest at the rate of 5% per annum would be payable from the date of this judgment until the full realisation of the said amount. The bench had also passed a decree of costs to the tune of Rs 3,23,10,966.60 along with the Court Fee. This suit was filed by Plaintiff Lifestyle Equities C.V. (LECV) and Lifestyle Licensing B.V. (LLBV) in 2020, seeking a permanent injunction and damages against the Defendants for infringement of their registered trademark, Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC). The allegation in the plaint was that the three Defendants have engaged in activities that constitute a violation of the exclusive rights in the BHPC logo mark. The Plaintiffs had asserted that they are the rightful proprietors of the BHPC mark, which enjoys extensive goodwill and recognition in the domestic and international markets. It was contended that the Defendants were unlawfully using a mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trademark, thereby violating their statutory and common law rights. It was stated that the horse device is a prominent part of the trademark. The word mark, along with the logo, is a registered trademark of the Plaintiff in various countries of the world. They had submitted that they are the registered proprietors of various marks, including the device mark, in approximately 91 countries, including the USA, UK, India, UAE, Nepal, Mexico, Germany, etc. As per the plaint, Defendant No.1 (Amazon Technology Inc.) was dealing with apparel products under. The private label- 'Symbol', consisting of a horse device mark almost identical to the BHPC logo device, thereby leading to infringement and unauthorised use. Defendant No.2-Cloudtail India Private Limited is alleged to have acted as the retailer of the said infringing apparel products, making them available for sale on the e-commerce platform which is managed and operated by Defendant No.3 Amazon Seller Services Private Limited. It was contended by the Plaintiffs that such unauthorised use of the infringing marks on the Defendant's platform constitutes trademark infringement and misrepresentation, causing consumer confusion and dilution of the Plaintiffs' mark and goodwill. (ANI)
