IQ Point Marketing, Inc. sets the record straight about IMatcher, Inc.’s lawsuits
HUNTINGTON, NEW YORK -- On June 11, 2001, Paul White, owner of IMatcher, Inc. obtained a temporary restraining order against IQ Point Marketing, Inc., a Long Island-based Internet marketing firm, enjoining them from “the use of any proprietary, confidential or trade secret information of Plaintiffs[’] in their possession, including but not limited to E-Mail Appending, procedure and process and all customer contacts or information.”
“We have never used any of Paul White’s information, proprietary or otherwise,” says Robert Mellman, Vice-President of IQ Point. “This lawsuit is absurd. Paul White is conducting business by smoke and mirrors. It seems that he cannot stand competition so he is attempting to litigate us out of business. Despite Mr. White’s strategy, we will continue to attract and maintain clients due to our strong business ethics and superior appending services.”
In response to White’s lawsuit, IQ Point filed papers showing that the documents upon which White’s TRO was granted were forged, false and misleading. “Someone forged my signature on the employment agreement that White submitted to the court ,” says Rafael Kis, an employee of IQ Point’s parent corporation and a co-defendant in IMatcher’s suit. According to papers that IQ Point filed in court, Mr. White included an apparently perjurious affidavit of Richard Slater in further support of his TRO. Mr. Slater, under oath, makes various claims including that he has been “a customer of IMatcher’s services since September 2000.” In fact, IMatcher lists Mr. Slater as its Sr. VP Sales & Marketing; Mr. Slater did not disclose this relationship to the Court.
IQ Point removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and has also brought counterclaims alleging unfair competition and false advertising under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. “We cannot understand why this matter was brought in the state courts. The New York Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter in this case,” says IQ Point’s attorney, Eugene D. Berman. “We are also puzzled by White’s claims that his information is ‘confidential’ since he put all that information in his court papers as exhibits for the world to see. Court documents are public records and there is a great deal of case law that holds that confidential information is only protectable if it is kept secret.”
Since obtaining the TRO, Paul White has harassed IQ Point’s clients and smeared its name; “we will not rest until they [IQ Point Marketing] are out of business,” White asserted in a recent press release. On July 10, 2001, White served a “summons” on Liberty Diversified, Inc. “We have seen what purports to be a lawsuit that White has brought against Liberty, but the form and procedure in this so-called process are improper. IMatcher cannot bring an action in New York State Supreme Court without an attorney, nor can Mr. White practice law without a license,” says Mr. Berman, IQ Point’s attorney. “We will prove at the hearing that Mr. White is a loose cannon without any protectable property.”
A hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should be granted is currently scheduled for August 8, 2001 before Magistrate Judge Michael Orenstein. IQ Point plans to cross-move the court for an injunction preventing White from interfering with its business operations.
Back...
