Schurman v. Reed Elsevier, Inc.
Filing
1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Reed Elsevier, Inc. from Jefferson Circuit Court, case number 11-CI-07966. (Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 0644-1355568), filed by Reed Elsevier, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Verified Complaint, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Correspondence from Plaintiff's counsel, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Jefferson Circuit Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal, # 4 Cover Sheet) (JBM)
~~ r vneAAR
AOC-105
Rev. 1-0?
Page 1 of 1
Doc. Code: CI
Case NA
.,ixilll il
K Circuit
Court
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Justice www.courts.ky.gov
CR 4.02; CR Official Form 1
District
Jefferson
County
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
DIVISION THREE (3)
CIVIL SUMMONS
PLAINTIFF
R.
PAUL
SCHURMAN
VS.
DEFENDANT
REED ELSEVIER
Service of Process Agent for Defendant:
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
306 W.
Main Street,
Ste. 512
Kentucky
Frankfort
'
''40601
THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S):
You are hereby notified a legal action has been filed against you in this Court demanding relief as shown on
the document delivered to you with this Summons. Unless a written defense is made by you or by an attorney on
your behalf within 20 days following the day this paper is delivered to you, judgment by default may be taken against you
for the relief demanded in the attached Complaint.
The name(s) and address(es) of the party or parties demanding
delivered to you with this Summons.
Qg
v~t.,3jR ~"
Date:
....,
relief against you are shown on
t~ocument
DAVID L. NICHOLSON
CIRCUIT COlJRT CLERK
Proof of Service
"This Summons was served by delivering a tiue copy and the Complaint (or other initiating document)
this
day
of„,
Clerk
O'A8.)du
to:,
...
2
-
--Served by:
Title
.I
I
cAsjgg ]f Q Q
9g 6
H~+aURT
DIVISI~nPInM vwv~~
rP~
JUDGE,
PLAINTIFF
PAUL R. SCHURMAN
FILED IN CL ~KS OCHCE
L NICHOI SON, CLERk
DAVID
I
VK~FxKn CoMp~~rkr
'E'
~
"I'Y
Driu,
V C~Er,a
DEFENDANT
REED ELSEVIER, INC.
Serve: CT Corporation System
306 W. Main Street, Ste. 512
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
The Plaintiff,
Paul
R. Schurman,
by counsel
for his Verified
Complaint
against
Defendant, Reed Elsevier, Inc. states as follows:
4
I.
INTROBUCTIGN
This is an action for conversion
and negligence
as a result
of Defendant hijacking
a
website exclusively licensed to Plaintiff.
II.
1.
Plaintiff, Paul R. Schurman
County, Kentucky.
PARTIES
("Schurman") is a resident and citizen of Jefferson
Mr. Schurman owns an exclusive license for the use of the domain address
www.kentuckv-lawver.corn.
2.
Defendant,
Reed Elsevier, Inc., is on information
and belief, a Massachusetts
corporation with its principal office located at 2 Newton Place, Ste. 350, Newton, Massachusetts
02458-1637 doing business in the state of Kentucky through various assumed names including,
but not limited to, LexisNexis and Martindale-Hubbell.
1
I
III.
STATEMENT AND VENUE
JURISDICTIONAL
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to (112{5)of the
and KRS
Constitution
Kentucky
exceeds the jurisdictional
threshold
)23{A).010, because the amount in controversy
of this Court, exclusive of interest
and costs, and
because exclusive jurisdiction is not vested in any other court.
4. Venue is proper in Jefferson County because Jefferson County is the site of the events
giving rise to this action; and the claims arise out
an agent
of defendant
of a transaction or transactions
with
that occurred in Jefferson County, Kentucky.
IV.
BACKGROUND FACTS
5. In 1996, the Plaintiff Schurman and a co-worker at the time, after some discussion,
decided to purchase certain domain names in order to use for business in the future.
I
session that followed and the ideas for use
6. In conjunction with the brainstorming
the various domain names, it was agreed that the Plaintiff Schurman
of
would have an
irrevocable exclusive license to forever use any domain addresses that were in his co-
worker's name
if they were not being
used at the time he chose to use said license.
7. As a result, in 2007, Plaintiff Schurman continued to have the exclusive license, at his
option, to use the domain name www,kentucky-lawver.corn,
as it was not yet being
used.
8. Because of the manner in which web searches are performed through Google.corn
and
other
internet
search
www.kentuckv-lawver.corn
engines,
generated search result for searches
of the
internet for lawyers in Kentucky.
9. As a direct result of this, the domain name www.kentucky-lawver.corn
value.
2
is a commonly
has substantial
t
10. In or around October or November of 2007, Plaintiff Schurman, as the managing
of
partner
Avery
& Schurman,
Defendant named Chad Pinkston
11. At
P.L.C., was contacted by a representative
("Mr.
Pinkston").
all times hereto, Mr. Pinkston was acting as an authorized
course and scope
of
for
.or within
his employment,
agent, either within the
the scope
of
his authority,
for
Defendant.
12. Mr. Pinkston advised Plaintiff Schurman that Defendant was entering the webpage
building business and that 'it could create a site for Avery & Schurman P.L.C, using
any domain it desired.
the website
In addition, he also indicated that Defendant was going to use
it owned www.lawvers.corn
legal search
to become the preeminent
the world for locating attorneys.
engine (and search result) throughout
13, After discussing the possible scenarios where Avery & Schurman would pay a fee for
created
a webpage
www.lawvers.corn,
by LexisNexis
at the
desired
domain
and
a
listing
on
Mr. Pinkston left and Mr. Schurman and his law partner Gretchen
Avery discussed their options.
14. After careful consideration
lawver.corn,
Mr. Schurman
and recognizing
his own rights to use www.kentucky-
chose to offer the use
of
the website, www.kentuckv-
lawver.corn for use by Avery &, Schurman in the hopes that its unique domain name
would
increase the web traffic generated
for the Avery & Schurman
law firm's
web site.
15. The Plaintiff's expectation, based on the information provided by Mr. Pinkston, on
behalf
of
additional
Defendant,
was that the domain name would
traffic to Avery & Schurman
3
soon generate
such that the value
significant
of his license to use
www.kentuckv-lawver.corn
would increase and he could then renegotiate
the license
he provided to Avery &, Schurman or sell it to others.
16. As a result, in late 2007, after Avery & Schurman reached an agreement with Plaintiff
Schurman
LexisNexis was advised
to use the domain www.kentuckv-lawver.corn,
would be either Avery
that www.kentucky-lawver.corn
& Schurman's
LexisNexis
created webpage address or would be linked thereto.
17. In February of 2008, Avery & Schurman began receiving bills from Defendant for
creating and maintaining
its website.
18. After Avery & Schurman became dissatisfied with the lack of business generated by
the arrangement
with Defendant, Avery
& Schurman eventually cancelled the service.
19. Because of the lack of business generated by the website, Plaintiff Schurman has not
received any payment for his license to Avery & Schurman
as it has not generated
any increase in business,
20. In the late Spring or Summer of 2011, Plaintiff Schurman discovered that the reason
any business
why the domain had not generated
www.lawvers.corn,
set up by Defendant
was illegally
www.kentuckv-lawver,corn
a wholly
for Avery & Schurman was that
owned website
of LexisNexis,
to redirect traffic to
rather than Avery &
Schurman's website.
21. As a result of redirecting web traffic to www.lawvers.corn,
should have resulted in www.kentuckv-lawver.corn
& Schurman's
website,
instead redirects
website to www.lawvers.corn.
4
being a result directed to Avery
traffic away from Avery & Schurman's
Thus, Defendant
hijacked the www.kentuckv-lawyer.corn
an internet search which
domain.
and its site www.lawvers.corn
have
'i
22. On information
resulting
revenue
lawver.corn
and belief, LexisNexis
of
as a result
has received
its improper
use
of
significant
web traffic and
the domain
www.kentuckv-
of Plaintiff Schurman's
in direct violation
rights as a licensee
of
the
domain.
23. As a further direct result, Plaintiff Schurman has lost the opportunity
financial benefit from the use
of his
domain and has been unable to obtain payment
for the use of www.kentuckv-lawver.corn
24, As result, Mr. Schurman
jurisdictional
to receive a
by Avery
has been damaged
k Schurman.
in amount
of excess of
this Court's
minimum.
V.
CLAIMS
Count I-Conversion
25. Restates and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
1 through
24.
26. The Plaintiff had the license and thus the legal right to use or assign the right to use
the domain name, www.kentuckv-lawver.corn.
27, The Defendant has stolen or exercised control over the domain in a manner that has
deprived Plaintiff
of the
right to use and enjoy his license to the domain name.
28. The Plaintiff has demanded return of the domain name and Defendant continues to
use the domain name without his authorization.
29, The actions of the Defendant were the legal cause of Plaintiff's loss of use of the
domain and his damages.
30. As a result, the Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth in Paragraphs 22 through 24
above.
S
31. The
actions
of Defendant were carried
thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award
out willfully,
of punitive
and with oppression,
wantonly
damages.
Count II-Negligence
32. Restates and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
1 through
31 above.
33. The Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in using the domain www.kentuckylawyer.corn in conjunction with Avery & Schurman's
34. As a direct and proximate
cause
of Defendant's
website.
negligence,
Plaintiff has been
damaged as set forth in Paragraph 22 through 24 above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Schurman demands as follows:
1. Judgment against the Defendant for consequential
2. An Order requiring
Defendant
to relinquish
and compensatory
the domain
name
damages;
www.kentucky-
lawyer.corn to Plaintiff or its owner;
3. Trial by jury;
4. Pre
and Post Judgment
Interest;
5. Punitive damages;
6. For all costs herein expended;
and
7. For any further relief to which he may
ear ntitled
Ddnai Y. Lax
John D. Cox
Lynch Cox, Gilman
k Goodman,
P.S.C.
st Jefferson Street, Ste. 2100
500
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
(502) 589-4215
6
VKRIFICATIQN
I, Paul R. Schurman, hereby state that I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint
the statements
contained therein are true and accurate to the best
of my
and belief,
dN
Date
I
7
R. Schurman
and
knowledge, information
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?