Some Morning News
These are all a bit too short for full entries, but they are important.
The deadline on HB 2094 (The Structural Work Act) has been extended to May 31.
A bill relating to the Notary Public Act, that would lessen fraudulent transfers in Cook County by requiring the thumbprints of grantors as well as sufficient descriptions of those transferring property has been amended. The bill had been sitting in the judiciary committee since December but has been revitalized. Important to those concerned about records keeping - the bill requires new records under the amendment to be kept for seven years by title companies and attorneys.
Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only, Inc. (7th Circ. Doc. No. 06-3560)
The Seventh Circuit has reversed a denial of attorney's fees under the prevailing party statute contained in 17 USC 505. The plaintiff had dismissed its own case as baseless and the district court had denied the defendant's motion for fees under the act. The appellate court found that fees were proper and that under the circumstances, a dismissal with prejudice did entitle the defendant's to attorney's fees. For those concerned about their copyright in designs, this is a boon and another reason to follow through on protecting your work through proper registration. The opinion is here.
The deadline on HB 2094 (The Structural Work Act) has been extended to May 31.
A bill relating to the Notary Public Act, that would lessen fraudulent transfers in Cook County by requiring the thumbprints of grantors as well as sufficient descriptions of those transferring property has been amended. The bill had been sitting in the judiciary committee since December but has been revitalized. Important to those concerned about records keeping - the bill requires new records under the amendment to be kept for seven years by title companies and attorneys.
Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only, Inc. (7th Circ. Doc. No. 06-3560)
The Seventh Circuit has reversed a denial of attorney's fees under the prevailing party statute contained in 17 USC 505. The plaintiff had dismissed its own case as baseless and the district court had denied the defendant's motion for fees under the act. The appellate court found that fees were proper and that under the circumstances, a dismissal with prejudice did entitle the defendant's to attorney's fees. For those concerned about their copyright in designs, this is a boon and another reason to follow through on protecting your work through proper registration. The opinion is here.
