Tag Archives: 1782

Case of the Day: In re Kleimar N.V.

The case of the day is In re Application of Kleimar N.V. (S.D.N.Y. 2016). Kleimar was engaged in an arbitration against Dalian Dongzhan Group Co. before the London Maritime Arbitration Association. Kleimer brought a § 1782 application seeking leave to take discovery from Vale S.A., a non-party, for use in the arbitration. The issue was whether the LMAA tribunal, a private arbitral tribunal, is a “tribunal” for purposes of § 1782.
Continue reading Case of the Day: In re Kleimar N.V.

Case of the Day: O’Keeffe v. Adelson

Sheldon Adelson
Sheldon Adelson. Credit: Bectrigger

The case of the day is O’Keeffe v. Adelson (11th Cir. 2016). This is the appeal from In re Application of O’Keeffe (S.D. Fla. 2015), which I covered. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson sued Wall Street Journal reporter Kate O’Keeffee in Hong Kong for defamation after she described him as a “scrappy, foul-mouthed billionaire from working class Dorchester, Mass.”
Continue reading Case of the Day: O’Keeffe v. Adelson

Case of the Day: In re King.com

Candy Crush Saga logl

The case of the day is In re King.com Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2016). King, a Maltese company, is the developer of the Candy Crush video game. It owned the European Candy Crush trademark and related marks. It sued Storm8 Studios LLC and TeamLava LLC in the Civil Court of Malta, alleging that their Candy Blast Mania game infringed the Candy Crush mark. The Maltese court stayed the action pending EU Intellectual Property Office review of a challenge to the validity of the marks. King brought an application under § 1782 seeking leave to depose Perry Tam, Chak Ming Li, and William Siu, Storm8 and TeamLava executives, for use in the Maltese action (after the stay is lifted). At the ex parte stage, King argued that the Maltese action would necessarily continue whatever the outcome of the validity proceedings, because several of the marks at issue in the infringement lawsuit were not at issue in the validity proceeding; that the validity proceedings might take a decade to complete; and that discovery now was important because Malta imposes no obligation to preserve evidence and “Respondents had a history of changing corporate forms.” The court granted the application.

After the court granted the application, the Maltese court entered an order requiring preservation of documentary evidence but denying King’s request for discovery. The respondents then moved to quash the US subpoena.
Continue reading Case of the Day: In re King.com