What's new

All about to kick off....

Google is showing some intreseting stuff on the development site.

Laser Chronicles | Lasers are manufactured and distributed in Africa ...
dev.laserperformance.com.php53-5.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/

LaserPerformance is displeased that the ISAF Sailing World Cup Event in Qingdao on October 12-19 used Lasers and Laser Radials from Performance SailCraft ...

Unauthorized Lasers at Qingdao ISAF Sailing World Cup Event ...
dev.laserperformance.com.php53-5.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/unauthoriz...

12 Oct 2013 - LaserPerformance is displeased that the ISAF Sailing World Cup Event in Qingdao on October 12-19 used Lasers and Laser Radials from ...
 

torrid

Just sailing
Courtesy of Google cache:

FAQ Concerning the Lawsuit initiated by Bruce Kirby

Why did LaserPerformance cease paying royalties to GLobal Sailing Ltd.?
LaserPerformance ceased paying royalties in Europe because Global Sailing Ltd., the owner of Kirby’s Laser sailboat design rights, terminated the builder’s agreement in July 2010.

Who is Global Sailing Ltd.?
Global Sailing Ltd., based in New Zealand, purchased Kirby’s rights to the Kirby sailboat design, known as the Laser, from Bruce Kirby in 2008. Global Sailing shares ownership with Performance Sailcraft Australia PTY.

Why did LaserPerformance cease paying royalties to GLobal Sailing Ltd., Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby Inc.?
LaserPerformance never ceased paying royalties in North America. Because of confusion in 2011 as to the correct ownership of Kirby rights, royalties were put into escrow pending ownership resolution with the full understanding of Bruce Kirby and Global Sailing.

Why does LaserPerformance not enter into mediation with the parties concerned?
LaserPerformance has agreed in multiple instances to meet and mediate with Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby Inc. Before Mr. Kirby initiated his lawsuit, LaserPerformance met with ISAF and ILCA and agreed to use mediation to resolve contractual issues amongst all parties involved including Global Sailing and PSA. The response from Mr. Kirby was negative and a lawsuit was launched against LaserPerformance. Subsequently ISAF and ILCA met with LaserPerformance and we renewed our call for mediation. This initiative was again rejected Bruce Kirby and Global Sailing Ltd.
 

Mrs. P

Member
Courtesy of Google cache:

Why does LaserPerformance not enter into mediation with the parties concerned?
LaserPerformance has agreed in multiple instances to meet and mediate with Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby Inc. Before Mr. Kirby initiated his lawsuit, LaserPerformance met with ISAF and ILCA and agreed to use mediation to resolve contractual issues amongst all parties involved including Global Sailing and PSA. The response from Mr. Kirby was negative and a lawsuit was launched against LaserPerformance. Subsequently ISAF and ILCA met with LaserPerformance and we renewed our call for mediation. This initiative was again rejected Bruce Kirby and Global Sailing Ltd.
Hokem! I believe LP offered to enter into NON-BINDING mediation. Meaning after you come to an agreement on how to proceed forward, Rastegar can still do whatever the heck he wants. How many people out there would spend good money to enter into non-binding mediation with Rastegar?
 

whatever

Member
Hokem! I believe LP offered to enter into NON-BINDING mediation. Meaning after you come to an agreement on how to proceed forward, Rastegar can still do whatever the heck he wants. How many people out there would spend good money to enter into non-binding mediation with Rastegar?
LP's claim doesn't seem to match the recently posted status report, where everyone except LP, Global Sailing and PSA have agreed to some kind of mediation: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.95.0.pdf
 

whatever

Member
So you mean ILCA, ISAF and BKI then.

As far as I am aware Global Sailing no longer has anything to do with this as they sold the rights back to BKI.....
Global Sailing and PSA are involved in the lawsuit as "Additional counterclaim defendants"
 
Last edited:

Mrs. P

Member
A Joint Status Report of Counsel was filed with the court on 11-21-13. Not really breaking news but ...

There are some oral hearings for pending motions that are scheduled for January 24, 2014 - Motions to Dismiss from Karaya, Velum, Rastegar, and ISAF.

Kirby is anticipating filing an amendment to add a party to the suit.

No discovery has been taken and ISAF, ILCA, BKE, and Kirby have all stated that are willing to refer the matter for settlement purposes to a US Magistrate Judge.
 

Mrs. P

Member
Latest on the Kirby v LP lawsuit. Hearing for multiple motions to dismiss parties took place on the 24th. Results appear to be sealed. Any attorneys out there that can translate what that means?

1/24/2014103SEALED NOTICE TO COUNSEL Signed by Clerk on 1/24/14.(Bauer, J.) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
1/24/2014102Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Robert N. Chatigny: taking under advisement 38 Motion to Dismiss; taking under advisement 39 Motion to Dismiss; taking under advisement 63 Motion to Dismiss; Motion Hearing held on 1/24/2014 re 39 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Farzad
Rastegar, 63 MOTION to Dismiss filed by International Sailing Federation Limited, 38 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Velum Limited ITM SA (Antigua and Barbuda), Karaya (Jersey) Limited. Total Time: 1 hours and 54 minutes(Court Reporter Warner, Darlene.) (Glynn, T.) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
 

jeffers

Active Member
I would guess this is because of the ongoing mediation/talks between the parties. They don;t want too much getting out into the public domain until these conclude or fall apart.
 

whatever

Member
I would guess this is because of the ongoing mediation/talks between the parties. They don;t want too much getting out into the public domain until these conclude or fall apart.
My non-lawyer's thoughts: I would not read too much into the sealing at this stage. Some lawyers explained why their motions should be accepted, others explained why not. The motions concerned dropping the claims against various parties. The judge will take some time to decide. You can read the motions here: http://ia801604.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.docket.html -- look for 38, 39 and 63.
 

Mrs. P

Member
According to that last entry, looks like Rastegar, LP, Karaya, Velum and Quarter Moon all added another law firm to their defense team. The first firm hasn't filed anything to withdraw so it doesn't appear to be a replacement. The recent motions were all motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The addition of a local firm (as opposed to the NY firm) would seem to indicate the motions were denied and Rastegar is now adding a local firm that has some history/experience with the court. Adding another firm to the legal team wouldn't make any sense if the dismissal motions were still pending or dismissal had been granted. Surely, it would have been cheaper to just pay the royalties he owes.

And speaking of dismissals, the ILCA had a dismissal motion pending. I haven't been watching this forum too much but noticed that SFBayLaser recently posted and I hadn't seen him post since the lawsuit was filed. Did I miss other postings or perhaps is that an indication that ILCA was dismissed?
 

whatever

Member
.... The recent motions were all motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The addition of a local firm (as opposed to the NY firm) would seem to indicate the motions were denied and Rastegar is now adding a local firm that has some history/experience with the court.
I think you are reading too much into the addition of another lawyer, although it might indicate that Rastegar is preparing for a continuing fight. I don't think that anyone knows the outcomes of the dismissal motions yet.

In the new lawyer's profile, I can't seen any particular specialization that would be relevant to this case:
http://www.npmlaw.com/attorney-and-paralegal-profiles/simon-i-allentuch/
Rastegar must already have "local" counsel -- someone qualified to act in CT -- on his legal team.

Adding another firm to the legal team wouldn't make any sense if the dismissal motions were still pending or dismissal had been granted. Surely, it would have been cheaper to just pay the royalties he owes.
While it does seem unlikely, Rastegar's position is that he has already overpaid the royalties. In any case, I think that past royalties are not the main concern here -- it's who has the rights to build Lasers (or Kirby Sailboats).
 

whatever

Member
This is interesting:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.76.0.pdf
It was originally filed under seal (ISAF marked it confidential), but later unsealed. It appears from the letter that there was an understanding between ISAF and Kirby that ISAF would be dropped from the lawsuit if ISAF told ICLA to stop issuing plaques to LaserPerformance and Quarter Moon. ISAF claims in the letter that it complied. However, subsequently Kirby did not dismiss ISAF -- why not?
 

Mrs. P

Member
This is interesting:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.76.0.pdf
It was originally filed under seal (ISAF marked it confidential), but later unsealed. It appears from the letter that there was an understanding between ISAF and Kirby that ISAF would be dropped from the lawsuit if ISAF told ICLA to stop issuing plaques to LaserPerformance and Quarter Moon. ISAF claims in the letter that it complied. However, subsequently Kirby did not dismiss ISAF -- why not?
ISAF refused to recognize Kirby's rights and refused to instruct the ILCA to stop issuing plaques until after Kirby had been forced to file suit. Less than a month after Kirby filed suit ISAF sent that confidential letter and ISAF also made a public announcement that they recognized Kirby's complaint as legitimate and instructed the ILCA to stop issuing the plaques. Then ISAF ratified the rule change.
 

whatever

Member
Have Kirby's lawyers screwed up?

There are recent documents regarding Rastegar asking for a default judgement, PSA explaining its failure to respond to the original claims (counterclaims?) against PSA within the appropriate time and Rastegar responding again.

Note that I am not a lawyer, so my analysis is probably flawed.

It appears that PSA failed to respond to Rastegar's claims/counterclaims within the appropriate time limit and now Rastegar is asking for a default judgement. For foreign companies, I think that default judgements can be meaningless (depending on where they are and where they do business) so it is possible that PSA and Kirby's lawyers initially decided to ignore the claims against PSA, but later decided that success by Rastegar could be a problem for PSA if PSA ever shipped boats to the USA. So, now PSA has responded to the request for default judgement, but the reasons for the delay appear weak ("gathering information"). Also I would have expected PSA to ask the court to allow the delay, but failed to do this.

So, in summary, I think that Rastegar has a good chance of getting the default judgement against PSA. I suspect that this will be largely meaningless and it certainly does not reflect anything about the merits of either side's behaviour.

Documents 86, 99, 100 and 107.
http://ia801604.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.docket.html
 

Mrs. P

Member
Have Kirby's lawyers screwed up?
I don't think Kirby's lawyers screwed up because BK/BKI is represented by someone different than GS and PSA.

Interesting that they filed for a default judgment against PSA but not GS. Even if they were to be granted a default judgment I'm not sure what they gain (not that I even know what I'm talking about). The relief Rastegar sought in his counterclaims was for items (a) through (k) in Doc. 40 and PSA is only mentioned in (d) and (e) for a "judgment amount to be determined in trial in excess of ..." Does that mean they would get the "excess of" amount or the "amount to be determined in trial" or is it ambiguous? Who knows. Maybe the Judge will just deny the default motion and grant PSA's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
 

whatever

Member
I don't think Kirby's lawyers screwed up because BK/BKI is represented by someone different than GS and PSA.
You are correct. I thought when looking at the lawyers' names there was an overlap between Kirrby and PSA, but now I see that I am mistaken.

I also don't understand how the money judgement would be determined. But, as I mentioned, even if there is a default money judgement against PSA, Rastegar would not be able to enforce it.

As for dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, I think that Rastegar's arguments that PSA's reply is too late has a strong chance of succeeding.

So, why, given the above, did PSA spend money on lawyers to submit the replies?
 

whatever

Member
All this reminds me of races with no wind. Progress is made, but it's agonisingly slow.
There has been some action today. Various motions to dismiss granted. Looks like I was wrong about Rastegar's attempt to get a default judgement against PSA -- that motion was denied.

So, as far as I can see, ISAF, Velum and Karaya are dismissed as defendants. Of course appeals are possible.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.117.0.pdf
 
So barring appeals, Karaya, Velum, ISAF and Farzad himself can pay the lawyers and leave the field of play?
Didn't see Karaya or Velum having to stick around too long.
Was not sure about ISAF.
Shame about Farzad. Would have been intreseting to have more information about the man and his companies come out in the court action.

I can see ISAF staff and Farzad himself back as "witness" when we get to the Kirby v LP in the courtroom.

With Karaya and Velum out the "lawsuit". Can Kirby now take his trademark case off hold? Wonder how quickly he will do this to keep the pressure up on the Farzad web of companies?

Let hope thing start to move abit quicker now. End of the day, we just want to go sailing. A stable class and builders be nice.
 

whatever

Member
So barring appeals, Karaya, Velum, ISAF and Farzad himself can pay the lawyers and leave the field of play?
Didn't see Karaya or Velum having to stick around too long.
Was not sure about ISAF.
Shame about Farzad. Would have been intreseting to have more information about the man and his companies come out in the court action.
Farzad is still a defendant (and counter-claim plaintiff, I think), as are Laser Performance Europe and Quarter Moon.

ILCA is still a defendant -- does the ILCA have the funds to pay for lawyers to properly defend itself?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mrs. P

Member
With Karaya and Velum out the "lawsuit". Can Kirby now take his trademark case off hold? Wonder how quickly he will do this to keep the pressure up on the Farzad web of companies?
The Velum and Karaya trademark cancellation cases are still proceeding along:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pno=&propno=&qs=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=bruce+kirby&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=

Kirby's trademark application for the LASER trademark is on hold pending the outcome of these cases. Not related to the Kirby v. LP lawsuit. So Velum and Karaya still have to defend themselves and the cancellation case is probably quite a bit stronger than the LP case anyway.

ISAF got away clean but maybe there was a confidential settlement or something and Kirby let them out. Who knows.
 

whatever

Member
The Velum and Karaya trademark cancellation cases are still proceeding along:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pno=&propno=&qs=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=bruce kirby&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=

Kirby's trademark application for the LASER trademark is on hold pending the outcome of these cases. Not related to the Kirby v. LP lawsuit. So Velum and Karaya still have to defend themselves and the cancellation case is probably quite a bit stronger than the LP case anyway.
I looked at those documents. It's going to be quite a long time before there are any decisions.

Did you notice the mistake by the USPTO? Instead of sending a letter to Jersey, they sent it to New Jersey! Whoops!
 

Mrs. P

Member
On Feb. 21, 2014, ISAF, Rastegar, Karaya and Velum were all dismissed from the Kirby v. Laser Performance lawsuit. It's been a month and there have been no announcements. The forums aren't even discussing, questioning or speculating. Sounds like a confidential settlement to me. If ISAF or Rastegar had been granted a dismissal flat out, surely they'd be announcing it to the world.

The LASER US trademark cancellation proceedings have had yet another extension filed. Sounds like there is movement behind the scenes on that front as well.

I hope, I hope, I hope this is all good news for Kirby.
 

whatever

Member
On Feb. 21, 2014, ISAF, Rastegar, Karaya and Velum were all dismissed from the Kirby v. Laser Performance lawsuit. It's been a month and there have been no announcements. The forums aren't even discussing, questioning or speculating.
We discussed this earlier. See above.
Sounds like a confidential settlement to me. If ISAF or Rastegar had been granted a dismissal flat out, surely they'd be announcing it to the world.
Again, see above. The dismissal was made by the judge in response to motions by ISAF, etc. But I think that you are wrong in one respect, Rastegar has not been dismissed.
 

Mrs. P

Member
Right. Except for the above discussion, there has been no one else talking about the dismissals. Surely, ISAF would have announced their dismissal (if they could).

The dismissed defendants were ISAF (Doc 63), Karaya & Vellum (Doc 38) and Rastegar (Doc 39). I'm pretty sure Rastegar is no longer a defendant and I would suspect that he was also dropped as a plaintiff on the counterclaim when he was released from the lawsuit.

But, let's recap what happened. On 1-27-14 there was a hearing on the 38, 39 and 63 motions to dismiss. The Judge entered a "sealed" notice to counsel (Doc 103). Other stuff happened then on 2-14-14 there were "sealed" responses regarding the 103 Sealed Order filed and the attachments to the sealed responses were 4 letters. I'm pretty sure that "sealed" is often code for confidential settlement negotiations. Then on 2-27-14 (13 days later) the Judge grants the dismissals on the three motions along with some other stuff. A month passes and no one has gone public with an announcement about the dismissals. ISAF being dismissed does not seem like a non-noteworthy event. No boasting, no mention in passing, no discussions (other than above) on the forums. Has to be a confidential settlement/agreement/truce with those parties.
 

whatever

Member
Right. Except for the above discussion, there has been no one else talking about the dismissals. Surely, ISAF would have announced their dismissal (if they could).

The dismissed defendants were ISAF (Doc 63), Karaya & Vellum (Doc 38) and Rastegar (Doc 39). I'm pretty sure Rastegar is no longer a defendant and I would suspect that he was also dropped as a plaintiff on the counterclaim when he was released from the lawsuit.

But, let's recap what happened. On 1-27-14 there was a hearing on the 38, 39 and 63 motions to dismiss. The Judge entered a "sealed" notice to counsel (Doc 103). Other stuff happened then on 2-14-14 there were "sealed" responses regarding the 103 Sealed Order filed and the attachments to the sealed responses were 4 letters. I'm pretty sure that "sealed" is often code for confidential settlement negotiations. Then on 2-27-14 (13 days later) the Judge grants the dismissals on the three motions along with some other stuff. A month passes and no one has gone public with an announcement about the dismissals. ISAF being dismissed does not seem like a non-noteworthy event. No boasting, no mention in passing, no discussions (other than above) on the forums. Has to be a confidential settlement/agreement/truce with those parties.

Wow! I really suck at reading the documents. I must be more careful in future.

But I think that the dismissals reflect the parties narrowing down the issues to a small number of key issues. People tend to throw everything into a lawsuit at the beginning and, after motion practice, various issues are decided and only a subset of issues actually go to trial. In this case, I think that you are probably right about the discussions leading to dismissals -- but I suspect that this is merely a normal culling of the extraneous issues rather than anything particularly revealing about the progress of the case.

It's possible that ISAF made some concessions in order to be dismissed, but Kirby already agreed to dismiss ISAF (and then reneged, possibly because ISAF reneged on the terms of whatever agreement was in place). It might be interesting to look for any changes in approach from ISAF to Lasers/Torch dinghies in the future.
 

ang

Member
About where the boat is made. Andy at Tackle Shack said they are still made in the UK
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top