Newsroom

Our client, SBC-Television, a South Asian television broadcasting company, alleged in its trademark infringement suit that SBC Knowledge Ventures, through its related companies, infringed on Plaintiff's common law rights to "SBC" and "SBCtv" trademarks.  The federal suit seeks injunction of the Defendants' use of the SBC registered service mark in view of the Plaintiff's prior continuous use of the marks since 1989 (started by its predecessor Super Broadcasting Company of Illinois) to identify Plaintiff's services in commerce.  The likelihood of confusion or mistake or deception of consumers as to the source of services in the Plaintiff's broadcast area (parts of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) is undisputable.  Plaintiff's position is that trademark rights are acquired by adoption and use, not by registration.  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive use of its mark within the broadcast area as a senior user of the marks. SBC Television, Inc. v. SBC Knowledge Ventures, L.P., et al.  Case #04-cv-0628, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

In September 2003, our client won a lawsuit against METRA Commuter Railroad Corporation and the Village of Morton Grove for their negligent removal of ice patches formed by snow mounds thawing and re-freezing at a train station parking lot. The significance of the victory is that the Tort Immunity Act shielding the municipality from liability and difficulty of proving unnatural accumulation of snow and ice, which caused the walker's fall and bodily injuries, usually prevent the financial recovery in such cases. Gerald Mattingly v. Village of Morton Grove and Metra Commuter Railroad Corp., case #00L062004, Illinois Circuit Court.

In October of 2003, the City of Chicago settled our client's suit against the city for failure to repair its sidewalks within a reasonable period of time. Such disrepair caused a pedestrian's fall and her bone fracture. In this case, the discovery revealed the city's records showing 159 property defect notices of the area of the sidewalk disrepair made by the city's employees within five years. Polina Rakhlina v. City of Chicago, case #01L522, Illinois Circuit Court.

In 2003, Parad Law Offices won a defamation suit against the Dun and Bradstreet Corporation (D&B) providing business information reports for companies worldwide. Plaintiffs alleged and D&B admitted that D&B prepared and repeatedly communicated to third parties its factual reports stating that the principal of the ethnic television broadcasting company SBC-TV, inc. had been indicted on racketeering charges including wire and mail fraud, illegal interstate travel and bilking investors for $20 million. Plaintiff alleged that he was neither the principal in the SBC-TV, Inc., nor was ever indicted of any crime. SBC-Television, Inc. v. The Dun and Bradstreet Corporation, Inc., U.S. District Court, N.D. of Illinois, Case #0300272.

The latest patent prosecuted by the firm, and issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2003, covers a unique "Air Based Refrigeration System." The invention revealed a refrigeration system using compressed air instead of freon. This cost-effective and environment friendly apparatus generates cold faster and at significantly lower termeratures than freon based devices.

The Colorado district judge entered a judgment on September 5, 2002, for $58,394,603 with the post judgment interest of 1.8% from the date of the judgment. This fraud, conversion and RICO suit alleged that Defendant Bryan conspired with unknown U.S. government officials to misappropriate the investors’ funds and financial instruments, and convert services of transaction intermediaries including Bryan’s CIA subordinates. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Bryan had promoted himself as a Commitment Holder for the U.S. and 18 foreign governments, banker, supplier of refined gold to the U.S. Treasury, and a manager of $335 Billion of private funds. Heini Demmer, et al. v. Paul K. Bryan, Special Air Operations Group, Inc., et al

The 7-day Michigan federal jury trial (ended on May 15, 2002) has resulted in the award of $8,100,000.00 to Plaintiff. The verdict amount is 27 times the Plaintiff’s $300,000, which was stolen by Bryan’s racketeering enterprise. The suit alleged that CIA operatives defrauded investors in worldwide racketeering schemes under a pretext of investment in secret, high-yield trading programs. (Vizantia-Exclusive, Ltd. v. Kristar, Inc., EyeLand Traders, Ltd., et al., Case #00-71800, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan)

A 9 day U.S. District Court jury trial ended with a verdict of $8.1 million against two alleged CIA operatives who defrauded investors in a worldwide racketeering scheme. The verdict was 27 times the amount plaintiff Invested in the scheme.

Vizantia-Exclusive was a Russian Import/export gold mine and real estate development company which claimed to be a growing company. It invested $300,000 in a scheme promoted by Defendants Christenson and Bryan who claimed to have access to a secret, high-yield medium term note trading program. Defendants were able to convince plaintiff of their alleged high-level CIA positions by revealing to plaintiff its own background secrets that only a few government officials would have known. Defendant Bryan allegedly convinced other victims of his and his company, Special Air Operations Group, of their affiliation with the US government. Bryan misappropriated $2,000,000 (which resulted in a $58,394604 judgment rendered by a Colorado federal court) from an Austrian Investor, $3,124,000 from an Arizona company, financial Instruments such as North Korea's Foreign Trade Bank Guarantees (valued at $4.645 billion), Bulgarian Bills of Exchange (about $108 billion) and so on. Defendant Bryan produced a copy of correspondence and a contract for the sale of 320 trillion Iranian Rials (about $106 billion) to him, stipulated that he received about $6,000,000 in cash and admitted that he paid no income taxes from 1980 to present.

Vizantia alleged violations of the RICO Act, fraud and conspiracy. It claimed that the company folded following the $300,000 loss because of its contracts and expected income from defendants scheme it asked the jury for tens of millions of dollars because of the shocking and sensitive nature of the claims.

Defendants admitted they took the money. Bryan argued that the scheme was orchestrated by Christenson and that the portion of plaintiffs money that Bryan received, $200,000, was payment to him from Christenson for bringing investment programs to Christenson for his investors. Christenson claimed Bryan was to blame. Case Number: 2OOCV71800