Bejan Shoraka was nominated to serve the community as a Magistrate, and after several courses in the Law and its applications, he was eventually appointed as a Magistrate by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on behalf and in the name of her Majesty, on 9th October 1998.

Bejan came to England to continue his education at an early age, and started in a boarding school in Birmingham in October 1962. After the usual “O” & “A” levels, he obtained a degree in Computer Science, in 1971, and then he went to Iran to start working in the computer industry at the bottom of the ladder, and finally became computer manager at Tolidaroo, and Benz Khavar.

After his successful start in Iran, he returned to England in 1978 to continue his career in the computer industry, with the last position with Wonderman Worldwide as a European Systems coordinator in 1988 before he resigned. He then started his own business as a consultant and also participating in Community work to help and guide the Iranian community at the same time. He soon became involved with Working Community Relations Forum (financed and supported by Surrey County Council) as a member of the management team, with the added responsibility of being the Treasurer. Since then his activities in serving the ethnic minorities, in particular the Iranian community has expanded and continued.

The German owner of the Mercedes-Benz car marque lost a High Court action yesterday aimed at stopping a Carnaby Street clothes trader calling his shop merc.

Mr Justice Pumfrey ruled that Javid Alavi had been using the name on his shop and on the clothing he sells for so long that it was too late for the car company to complain.

DaimlerChrysler AG had argued that it possessed the goodwill and reputationassociated with the word Merc, which was a frequently used abbreviation for Mercedes-Benz cars.

The company said that the public would be likely to regard clothes bearing the word Merc as having its licence and accused Mr Alavi of passing off his clothes as something they were not.

Mr Alavi produced evidence that his shop had been using the name Merc for 33 years. He said that during that time there had not been a single instance of confusion.

The judge said: "There must come a time after which the court would not interfere with a continued course of trading which might have involved passing off as its inception but no longer did so."

After the verdict Mr Alavi said:"It was absolutely fantastic to win."

----------------------

FRIDAY FEBRUARY 16 2001

Law Report - Daimler Chrysler AG v Alavi (t/a Merc)

For a claim for trade mark infringement under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 to succeed, the claimant had to provide evidence that the association between the proprietor’s mark and the defendant’s sign was such that the defendant either gained an unfair advantage from his association with the proprietor’s mark or that the association of the defendant’s sign with the claimant’s mark had damaged the reputation of that mark.

Mr Justice Pumfrey so held in a reserved judgment in the Chancery Division, dismissing the action of the claimant, Daimler Chrysler AG, against the defendant, Mr Javid Alavi, trading as “Merc”, for infringement of the claimant’s registered UK and EC trade marks in the names “Mercedes” and Mercedes-Benz”, and or for the defendant passing off himself and his business, a shop called “Merc” selling clothing and shoes in the Carnaby Street area of London’s West End. Mr Henry Carr, QC and Mr Mark Vanhegan for the claimant; Mr Alastair Wilson, QC and Mr James Graham for Mr Alavi.

MR JUSTICE PUMFREY said that despite evidence of usage of the word “Merc” as an abbreviation of or nick-name for Mercedes-Benz, there was no evidence of spillover in relation to the clothing marks, and none of confusion between the defendant’s sign and the claimant’s UK trade marks in relation to clothing. The main thrust of the claimant’s case on detriment was that Mr Alavi’s business was heavily concerned with mods, skinheads and casuals, none of which groups Mercedes wished to be associated with.

It was further alleged that the defendant’s website contained links to skinhead websites, which were distasteful, and which contained links to other websites which were more distasteful still.

No objection to the defendant’s use of the sign “Merc” could be made out on that ground. There was no evidence that any member of the public associated the use of the mark “Merc” on the website with any of the claimant’s marks, still less that that somehow damaged the viewer’s perception of the claimant’s products.

Kourosh Shamlou, a 30-year old lawyer working for one of the best litigation American law firm in tax and bankruptcy in the glamorous eight district of Faubourg Saint-Honore in Paris has started a law society.

There are 38 Iranian lawyers in different law firms in France and they are all in Paris. Most of them are in corporate MNA law and some specialising in tax law and some in bankruptcy and finance.

His main reason for becoming a lawyer was he wanted to defend the powerless against the powerful and all the injustices he sees in the world.

He works in the corporate law, M&A and in merger accusation department. There are branches in New York, Washington, Tokyo, Beijing and Hong Kong.

SAFIR started in September 2000 and there is an annual membership fee of £30. The financial help for the association comes mainly from the annual membership fee. His aim is to create a network among Franco-Iranian lawyers to help each other, finding work for lawyer students, providing them with bourses, professional training and jobs. Also for Iranians who don't have any money and who need help can seek help from SAFIR who do not charge any money for guidance in the French jurisdiction.

"Safir is not sponsored by any Company or Organization, the Companies that have been named as sponsoring Safir was a mistake."

For more information you can visit: www.safir-france.com


Kourosh Shamlou

Supt Dr Ali Dizaei will be part of delegate attending a international police conference in Toronto Canada week commencing 14\8\2000. Dr Dizaei will be addressing the conference on all aspects of criminal justice and police role as major stakeholder in the process. His views were recently televised on ITV news and in the Sunday papers. Other speakers include US Attorney General, Janet Reno, Asst Director of FBI (to be confirmed) and many other leading academics.


Supt Dr Ali Dizaei

Further to our interview with Dr Ali Dizaei, Superintendent for Kensington & Chelsea and Notting Hill, in April on Racism in the Police Force, we have been given an update by Dr Dizaei on the post-Stephen Lawrence inquiry.

It would appear that the Government is anxious to put the recommendations put forward in the McPherson report into practice. This would have a huge impact on the ethnic minorities living in this country. Recently the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, assigned Dr Dizaei and his team to travel to the United States to find out how issues of race are being dealt with over there. As a result of briefing a number of presidential appointments to various organisations, notably a meeting with Jesse Jackson, not to mention addressing a conference to a number of congressmen in Chicago By Dr Dizaei, a full report of recommendations has been submitted to the Home Secretary and is currently under consideration. In the report, Dr Dizaei has put forward a number of radical ideas that have never before been considered in the UK. He has recommended that there be an appointment of a Ministerial Ombudsman for the Police.

The Ombudsman would independently assess the progress of forces with regards to community and race relations, rather than allow the police to inspect themselves. In other words if, for instance, a Chief Constable fails to achieve certain targets, then the Ombudsman will have specific powers of financial sanctions.

Dr Dizaei has also asked the Home Secretary to consider sanctions for Police forces who do not achieve various targets to do with race relations, and more importantly he has asked for the creation of a completely separate agency called "The Community Service Agency" to act as a mediator between the police and the ethnic communities in times of tension to bridge the gap by means of a reconciliation process. In the States, the idea of having a Community Service Agency seems to have worked and it is hoped that it also works for the UK if the same concept is implemented.

Copyright, together with patent law and trademark law, make up intellectual property law, although copyright is nowadays by far the most important of the three branches. Copyright protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works by regulating what rights the owner of copyright have and how such rights can be infringed. Items which are protected by copyright can include private letters, home videos, photographs, business cards, brochures and business reports. Clearly, therefore, copyright affects us all, both as members of the public and in our business lives. As a leading copyright lawyer rightly stated, ‘No business can afford to be ignorant of the implications of copyright in its daily work'.

In order to obtain copyright protection a work must fall into one of four categories, (1) a ‘literary work' e.g. a letter, a table or a computer program; (2) a ‘dramatic work' e.g. a dance or a musical; (3) a ‘musical work' e.g. music exclusive of words or action; or (4) an ‘artistic work' e.g. a diagram, a photograph, a chart or even a building. The work also has to be ‘original' which means that it must originate from its author and not have been copied. Generally if the author has spent sufficient independent skill, labour and judgement it will be an ‘original' work and, provided that copyright has not yet expired, the work will qualify for copyright protection. Each case needs to be examined on its own facts. A translator who translates a speech in Farsi into English will be entitled to copyright in that work as they have used their skill to complete the task and have also changed the medium of the work from oral to written. Similarly an architect who designs a building using a combination of features from preceding designs will be entitled to copyright protection as he has expended skill in creating the finishing product. However a person who slavishly copies the Mona Lisa, making an exact replica, will probably not be entitled to copyright protection!

The next important question that needs to be answered is ‘who owns the copyright?'. Generally it will be the author, (i.e. the creator) of the copyright work. Thus in the case of a private letter, the person who wrote the letter, in the case of a business table the person who compiled the table, and in the case of an advertisement the person who designed the advert. It may be that more than one person has designed the advertisement, in which case there will be ‘joint ownership'. The exception to the general rule is that where the ‘work' was made by an employee in the course of his or her employment his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work, subject to any agreement to the contrary. It is also important to consider whether copyright has been transmitted to another person. This can only be done in writing signed by, or on behalf of the assignor who would be the copyright owner. Businesses seeking to buy copyright should make sure that these formalities are complied with as a verbal assignment or an assignment not signed by the assignor is worthless.

The owner of copyright is entitled to certain rights and can sue anyone who infringes those rights. Thus if someone else copies the work, issues copies of the work to the public, broadcasts or performs the work without the authority or consent of the owner they would be liable. Ignorance is not a defence! Thus the person who spent days writing a verse which, unbeknown to him, had already been written is as liable as the fraudster who meticulously copied it! The owner would normally be entitled to an injunction to prevent the infringer from continuing to abuse the work in question, damages or an account of profits. The author is also entitled to sue the ‘secondary infringers', being those who have, for example, imported the work in question or offered it for sale. For secondary infringers ignorance is a defence and they can only be successfully sued if they knew or had reason to believe that the work was an infringing copy. Therefore if, for example, your internal business