Speed Dating with Taxes! Practical Tax Law for the Non-Tax Attorney, Sept. 13

Chaired by Judge Wentworth from the Indiana Tax Court, this program presents a variety of different tax areas in a quick, rapid-fire fashion. Think of it in terms of speed dating for taxes, moving from one area to another in a fairly brisk format.
_____________________

TOPICS
Property Tax
– Kevin D. Chestnut

Nonprofit Tax
– Adam C. Shields

Choice of Entity Tax
– William W. Barrett

Sales & Use Tax
– Jeffrey A. Greene

Pro Bono Tax
– Jamie Andree

State Income Tax
– Nathan J. Hagerman

Death Tax
– Jonathan E. Lamb

Federal Tax
– Richard L. Bartholomew

ObamaCare Penalties
– Dee Dee Gowan
____________________

FACULTY:
Hon. Martha B. Wentworth – Chair
Indiana Tax Court, Indianapolis, IN

Jamie Andree
Low Income Taxpayer Clinic, Indiana Legal Services, Inc., Bloomington, IN

William W. Barrett
Williams Barrett & Wilkowski, LLP, Greenwood, IN

Richard L. Bartholomew
Girardot, Strauch & Co., Lafayette, IN

Kevin D. Chestnut
Ryan, LLC, Indianapolis, IN

Dee Dee Gowan
Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic, Indianapolis, IN

Jeffrey A. Greene
Transaction Tax Attorney LLC, Carmel, IN

Nathan J. Hagerman
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Indianapolis, IN

Jonathan E. Lamb
Cremer & Cremer, Indianapolis, IN

Adam C. Shields
Krieg DeVault LLP, Indianapolis, IN
_____________________

SPEED DATING WITH TAXES!
TAX LAW FOR THE NON-TAX ATTORNEY
3 CLE / 3.5 CPE – Tuesday, September 13
9:00 A.M. – 12:15 P.M.

LIVE IN-PERSON SEMINAR
– ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis

LIVE GROUP WEBCASTS
– Taft Law Office, Indianapolis
– Ice Miller Law Office, Indianapolis

LIVE INDIVIDUAL WEBCAST
– From your home or office computer

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Highlighted Seminars0 Comments

38th Indiana Law Update, Sept. 20-21: Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Michigan City & Evansville

38th Indiana Law Update, Sept. 20-21: Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Michigan City & Evansville

36th Annual Judge Robert H. Staton Indiana Law Update, Sept. 23-24, 2014: An ICLEF 12 CLE SeminarThe 38th Annual Judge Robert H. Staton Indiana Law UpdateTM program began in 1979 under the Chairmanship of the late Hon. Robert H. Staton. It continues to offer the finest scholarly review of the latest trends, developments and changes in Indiana Law. Offering 12 CLE credits along with 1 ethics credit, it’s an outstanding value for your CLE dollar.

Indiana Law UpdateTM has no duplicate! If you want the very finest Update program, attend on September 20-21, 2016 in the 500 Ballroom of the Indiana Convention Center or at one of the Live Group Webcast locations around the state. You can also watch from the comfort of your home or office with our Live Individual Webcasts of Day 1 & 2.

And This Year at the Indiana Convention Center… FREE WIFI ACCESS!

PROGRAM CHAIR:
Hon. Melissa S. May
Judge, Indiana Court of Appeals, Indianapolis, IN

TOPICS & FACULTY:
Ethics – Charles M. Kidd & Kevin P. McGoff

Constitutional Law Kenneth J. Falk

State and Federal Tax Update – Richard L. Bartholomew

Family and Juvenile Law – Hon. Vicki L. Carmichael & James A. Reed

Real Estate – Joshua C. Neal

Internet Law – Jessica L. Ballard-Barnett & Anthony J. Rose

Insurance Law – Richard S. Pitts

Torts – Kevin P. Farrell

Evidence: Criminal and Civil – Hon. Robert R. Altice Jr.

Employment Law – Melanie M. Dunajeski

Probate, Wills, Trusts and Elder Law – Todd I. Glass & Randall K. Craig

Business, Contracts and Banking – F. Anthony Paganelli

Criminal Law – Stacy R. Uliana & Jack H. Kenney

Intellectual Property Law – Thomas Q. Henry

Energy, Oil & Gas Law Update – John S. Rowe

Gun Law in Indiana – Guy A. Relford

Bankruptcy Law – Thomas P. Yoder

____________________________________

38TH ANNUAL JUDGE ROBERT H. STATON
INDIANA LAW UPDATETM
Tuesday & Wednesday, September 20 & 21, 2016
8:50 A.M. – 4:45 P.M. Eastern (Both Days)

For your convenience this years program will be available
simultaneously in multiple locations across the state:

LIVE IN-PERSON SEMINAR
– Indiana Convention Center, 500 Ballroom,
100 S. Capitol Ave., Indianapolis, IN 46225
_____________________________________

LIVE GROUP WEBCASTS
– Grand Wayne Center, Fort Wayne
120 W. Jefferson Blvd., Fort Wayne, IN 46802

– Blue Chip Resort & Casino, Michigan City
777 Blue Chip Drive, Michigan City, IN 46360
Program begins at 7:50 A.M. Central Time

– RhineErnst LLP Law Office
One Main Street, Suite 600, Evansville, IN 47708
Program begins at 7:50 A.M. Central Time
______________________________________

LIVE INDIVIDUAL WEBCASTS OF DAY 1 & 2
DAY 1    – or –    DAY 2
From your home or office computer with internet access
______________________________________

VIDEO REPLAY SEMINARS
– Available state wide after Live Seminar date

______________________________________

For a Full Agenda, Additional Info or to Register Please, Click Here.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Blog, Sale/Featured Items0 Comments

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Venue in Northern District Not Improper Under “Substantial Part of the Events” Test

By: Paul B. Overhauser  Publisher: Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

Fort Wayne, Indiana – The Northern District of Indiana has denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue, citing the connection of the Northern District to the events underlying the litigation.

This Indiana trademark litigation, Family Express Corp. v. Square Donuts, Inc., was filed to resolve a dispute over the use of the words “Square Donuts” in connection with the sale of donuts by two different Indiana-based companies.

Defendant Square Donuts of Terre Haute, Indiana claims trademark rights to “Square Donuts” under federal and Indiana law. It currently sells its “Square Donuts” in bakeries located in southern and central Indiana, including locations in Terre Haute, Indianapolis, Bloomington, and Richmond.

Plaintiff Family Express of Valparaiso, Indiana operates convenience stores in northern Indiana and uses the term “Square Donuts” in conjunction with doughnut sales. Plaintiff states that both it and Defendant are expanding their respective businesses into new markets, with Defendant expanding to the north while Plaintiff expands to the south. Thus, territory in which both operate concurrently has become a possibility.

In 2006, Defendant sent a cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and Defendant subsequently discussed the possibility of entering into a co-existence arrangement, but did reach an agreement.

This trademark lawsuit followed. Plaintiff asks the Indiana federal court to declare that its use of the term does not infringe on the trademark rights in “Square Donuts” asserted by Defendant. Plaintiff also asks the court to cancel Defendant’s existing Indiana and federal “Square Donuts” trademarks.

Trademark litigators for Defendant asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that it had been filed in an improper venue. In evaluating whether venue in the Northern District was permissible, the court first noted that, while it “must resolve all factual disputes and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor,” Plaintiff then bears the burden of establishing that venue is proper. It also noted that venue can be proper in more than one district.

The federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), provides that venue can exist in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside [in the same state]” or “(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 

Plaintiff relied on subsection (b)(2), claiming that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the lawsuit took place in the Northern District of Indiana. To establish venue, Plaintiff pointed to the fact that Defendant’s cease-and-desist letter and other communications had been relayed to Plaintiff in the Northern District. At least some rulings by districts courts located within the Seventh Circuit have held that the requirements for venue “may be satisfied by a communication transmitted to or from the district in which the cause of action was filed, given a sufficient relationship between the communication and the cause of action.”

The Northern District of Indiana concluded that such communications, which would be a typical element of litigation under the Declaratory Judgment Act, would defeat the purpose of protecting a defendant from having to litigate “in the plaintiff’s home forum, without regard to the inconvenience to the defendant at having to defend an action in that forum or whether the defendant has engaged in substantial activities in that forum.”

Instead, the Indiana court considered the underlying substance of the dispute: “whether the Defendant’s Square Donuts trademark is valid and, if it is, whether the Plaintiff nevertheless has refrained from infringing on the trademark in connection with the sale of its Square Donuts.” The court concluded that, given the extent to which the claims and events at issue in the litigation took place in both the Northern and the Southern District of Indiana, venue was not improper in the Northern District of Indiana.

Practice Tip #1: If neither subsection (b)(1) nor (b)(2) of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 applies, a third subsection may be utilized. That subsection, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3), permits venue in “any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 

Practice Tip #2: An inquiry into proper venue for a lawsuit is different from one into personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction “goes to the court’s power to exercise control over a party,” while venue is “primarily a matter of choosing a convenient forum.”

The case is assigned to District Judge Theresa L. Springmann and Magistrate Judge John E. Martin in the Northern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00103-TLS-JEM.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

By: Paul B. Overhauser, Publisher, Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

Overhauser Law Offices, LLC provides intellectual property services including patents, trademarks, copyrights and infringement litigation. Whether you’re an entrepreneur launching your first invention or a corporation looking for a litigation specialist, we have the legal experience to meet your goals.

To learn more about how Overhauser Law Offices can help you, browse our website to meet our lawyers and peruse our practice areas.  Then contact us, and we’ll put our expert team to work for you.

© 2016

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Intellectual Property Blog0 Comments

The New FLSA Regulations, Sept. 9th

Earlier this Spring, the Department of Labor issued the new FLSA regulations, set to go into effect on December 1, 2016.  Led by Tami A. Earnhart of Ice Miller LLP, this one hour program is designed to help you and your clients prepare for these important changes:
• Salary Threshold for White-Collar Exemptions: The “salary level test”
• Highly-Compensated Employee Exemption Threshold
• Adjustments to Threshold: When will they be made and how?
• Bonuses and Incentive Payments: How are they counted?
• Overview of What Will Not Change
• Options After Effective Date and Action Steps
• Potential Pitfalls
______________________________________________

FACULTY:
Tami A. Earnhart
Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis
______________________________________________

How do they Affect You & Your Client 
1 CLE – Friday, September 9
12:15 P.M. – 1:15 P.M.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Highlighted Seminars0 Comments

Having trouble logging in?Visit our Support section.

Subscribe

Contact Us

ICLEF
230 East Ohio Street
Suite #300
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Phone: 317-637-9102
Fax: 317-633-8780
E-mail: iclef@iclef.org