DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google
sender
Ryan Krylyszyn
on behalf of Armstrong Lawyers
[Private] , , , AU Sent on COUNTRY: AUrecipient
Google, Inc.
[Private]
Other Entities:
- Principal
Re: Websearch Infringement Notification via Online Form Complaint
Sent via: online form
- Notice Type:
- DMCA
-
Copyright claim #1
Kind of Work: UnspecifiedDescription several articles have been taken from our website; example below. - Our copyrighted works are at: http://www.armstronglawyers.com.au/index.php?sectionID=10245&pageID=10283 Restraint from carrying on business after expiry of Franchise Agreement In DIAL-AN-ANGEL ORS v PENCHIME PTY LTD ANOR [1998] WASC 180 (11 June 1998 the Supreme Court of New South Wales rejected an application by the franchisor to enforce a restraint of trade clause of the Franchise Agreement preventing the franchisee from carrying on a similar business in Perth for 3 years after the termination of the agreement. In this case, the franchisee decided not to renew the agreement, changed its name and continued to provide similar services to the franchised business. The Court ruled that this type of clause is generally not enforceable as being contrary to public policy. Thus the onus is on the covenantee (in this case the franchisor) to prove that the provision is reasonable for the protection of its legitimate interest. The fact that the franchisee changed its business name was sufficient for the Court to decide that the intellectual property of the franchisor was not endangered.Original URLs:- www.armstronglawyers.com.au - 1 URL
Allegedly Infringing URLs:- jamesmasterlies.wordpress.com - 1 URL
Click here to request access and see full URLs.
-
Copyright claim #2
Kind of Work: UnspecifiedDescription our article below our site: http://www.armstronglawyers.com.au/index.php?sectionID=10245&pageID=10283 which holds the copyrighted article below. DYMOCKS HOLDINGS PTY. L.TD ORS. V. TOP RYDE BOOKSELLERS PTY. LTD. ORS [2000] NSWSC 390 (15 May 2000), in 1996, three Dymocks franchisees contributed small amounts of money for a subscription to the Dymocks web-site, supplemented by annual fees. In consideration for these payments, all profits from the web-site were to go to the Advertising Fund, which would operate the site in trust for all franchisees. In 1998, it was found that the Fund was not resourced to manage the site and the responsibility was proposed to be re-assigned back to the franchisor. The franchisees were asked to sign a deed confirming that any right they may have had in the site would be transferred to the franchisor. The franchisees refused to sign this deed and sought to establish an equity interest in the site proportional to their contributions. The estimated value of the Dymocks domain name and web-site was $50m. The Court found that the franchisees were entitled to compensation putting them in the position had the site continued to belong to the Advertising Fund between the date of termination of the agreement by Dymocks and the date of expiry of the existing individual franchise agreements (with no option to renew).Original URLs:- www.armstronglawyers.com.au - 1 URL
Allegedly Infringing URLs:-
No infringing URLs were submitted.
Click here to request access and see full URLs.