Latest news with #Plaintiffs
Washington Post
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him
President Donald Trump and his appointees have been accused of flouting courts in a third of the more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling, a Washington Post analysis has found, suggesting widespread noncompliance with America's legal system. Plaintiffs say Justice Department lawyers and the agencies they represent are snubbing rulings, providing false information, failing to turn over evidence, quietly working around court orders and inventing pretexts to carry out actions that have been blocked.
NBC Sports
19-07-2025
- Automotive
- NBC Sports
Denny Hamlin reaffirms support for lawsuit vs. NASCAR, saying: 'All will be exposed'
23XI Racing co-owner Denny Hamlin reaffirmed his commitment Saturday to the antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR even as all three of his cars will run without charter status this weekend at Dover Motor Speedway. A U.S. District Court judge denied a request by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports for a temporary restraining order Thursday. That order would have allowed the two organizations to compete with the status of chartered teams despite not signing the charter agreement last year. The U.S. District Court judge did not rule on the request by both teams for a preliminary injunction on the same matter. Dustin Long, This is only a part of the antitrust lawsuit the two teams filed last October against NASCAR and NASCAR CEO Jim France. The case is scheduled for trial Dec. 1. Asked about the ramifications of 23XI Racing competing as an open team this weekend, Hamlin told reporters Saturday at Dover: 'This would just be my blanket answer for all questions about this. If you want answers, you want to understand why this is all happening, come Dec. 1. You'll get the answers that you're looking for and all will be exposed.' Later asked if anything has caused him to second guess the lawsuit, Hamlin told reporters: 'Not a chance.' Asked if 23XI Racing has had to do anything different as an open team, Hamlin cited the trial date in his response, saying: 'Dec. 1 is all that matters. Mark your calendar.' 23IX Racing employs Cup drivers Tyler Reddick, Bubba Wallace and Riley Herbst. Front Row Motorsports employs Cup drivers Todd Gilliland, Zane Smith and Noah Gragson. Reddick told reporters Saturday: 'Everything related to the litigation, charters, I don't have a comment for at the time.' Last year when 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports sought a preliminary injunction that would allow them to operate with charter status, Reddick's contract was cited in that he had to be aligned with a team with a charter. In its request this past week for the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports raised the issue of driver contracts and sponsor contracts being impacted if they did not have the charter status. While denying the temporary restraining order this week, Judge Kenneth D. Bell wrote: 'Finally, Plaintiffs say they face the threat of the irreparable loss of drivers and sponsor relationships and opportunities. 'With respect to drivers, the record stands in a different posture than it did prior to the season when the Court entered the earlier injunction. 'While Plaintiffs' drivers could have realistically terminated their contracts with Plaintiffs and/or been lured away by other teams, that prospect (although theoretically still conceivable) appears unlikely at this late stage of the season, and Plaintiffs have not offered evidence that any drivers are intending to do so in the next two weeks. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not established an imminent loss of sponsorships before the Preliminary Injunction can be decided.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
01-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
HC stays order asking Amazon to pay ₹339 cr to polo club in trademark row
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 cent 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. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Arab News
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Lawsuit challenges billions of dollars in Trump administration funding cuts
BOSTON: Attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, D.C. filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees. 'Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,' the plaintiffs argued. 'The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities.' The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a 'slash-and-burn campaign' to cut federal grants. 'Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programs,' the lawsuit added. Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts. This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts. 'It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions,' Neronha said in a statement. 'Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programs and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called 'agency priorities clause.' Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal. 'There is no 'because I don't like you' or 'because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim,' Tong said in a statement. 'Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our health care, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding.' In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the US Department of Agriculture terminated a $11 million agreement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to hundreds of food distribution sites while the US Environmental Protection Agency terminated a $1 million grant to the state Department of Public Health to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities. 'We cannot stand idly by while this President continues to launch unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts' residents, institutions, and economy,' Campbell said in a statement. The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.' 'The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause— 'no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities'— provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding,' the lawsuit said.
Associated Press
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Lawsuit challenges billions of dollars in Trump administration funding cuts
BOSTON (AP) — Attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, D.C. filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees. 'Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,' the plaintiffs argued. 'The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities.' The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a 'slash-and-burn campaign' to cut federal grants. 'Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programs,' the lawsuit added. Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts. This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts. 'It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions,' Neronha said in a statement. 'Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programs and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called 'agency priorities clause.' Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal. 'There is no 'because I don't like you' or 'because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim,' Tong said in a statement. 'Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our healthcare, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding.' The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.' 'The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause—'no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities'—provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding,' the lawsuit said.
