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)

Download PDF
~~ 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?