Barry S. Scheer and Eric J. Parker named "Super Lawyers" by Publishers of Boston Magazine and Law & Politics Magazine
Parker Scheer co-founders, Barry S. Scheer and Eric J. Parker, were recently named Massachusetts Super Lawyers by the publishers of Boston Magazine and Law & Politics Magazine. Eric Parker received the honor in the category of leading "Plaintiff's Personal Injury Lawyers" while Barry Scheer was cited as among Massachusetts' top "Business Litigation Lawyers". Super Lawyers 2004 is a list of Massachusetts' best lawyers as determined by an independent blue ribbon committee, under the auspices of Boston Magazine and Law & Politics Magazine. Those receiving the Super Lawyer designation represent the top 5% of all Massachusetts attorneys.
SUPERMAN, character, name and all related indicia are trademarks of DC Comics © 1999

Media and Technology Charter High School Receives Charter Renewal and Words of Praise, from Boston Public School Commissioner, David Driscoll.
In a letter to Board of Trustees Chairman, Eric J. Parker, dated September 28th, 2004, Massachusetts Board of Education Commissioner David Driscoll announced the renewal of the Media and Technology Charter High School (MATCH) public school Charter.. The MATCH School, founded in 1999 by Harvard’s Kennedy School graduate, Michael Goldstein, is a lottery-based Public Charter high school, serving primarily African-American and Latino inner-city high school students, most of whom come from Massachusetts’ poorest neighborhoods. Parker Scheer co-founder, Eric J. Parker, joined the founding Board of Trustees in February, 1999 has served as Chairman of the Board since October 2001. The mission of the MATCH School is to prepare Boston students to succeed in college and beyond, including and especially those students who have not been led to expect a university education. The college graduation rate among inner-city students nationally is below 10%. Our mission is to reverse that underachievement. The MATCH School has been a pro bono client of Parker Scheer since the School’s creation in 1999.

Personal Injury

Tests performed at on the "multi-use" vials from which both plaintiffs received their infusions, returned positive for Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) bacteria. The defendant product manufacturer denied that any of the products sold to the defendant physician were tainted when they left the defendant's manufacturing facility, and argued that the introduction of S. aureus bacteria occurred, if at all, after the vials were received and prepared by the defendant physician and nurse for use at the clinic.

As a direct result of their infections, both plaintiffs were forced to undergo lengthy intravenous antibiotic treatment, and suffered a range of continuing deficits including knee pain and weakness caused by the settling of the infection in the plaintiff's joints, as well as chronic fatigue.

Parker Scheer reached a settlement with the defendant pharmaceutical manufacturer in an amount to be disclosed after resolution of the remaining claims against the defendant doctor and nurse.. Parker Scheer Attorneys Eric J. Parker and Susan M. Bourque represented the plaintiffs.

Civil Litigation

Parker Scheer Successfully Challenges Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Reveal Settlement Terms
On Sept. 23, 2004, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Mitchell J. Sikora, Jr., ruled that plaintiffs with civil tort claims against a defendant pharmaceutical manufacturer and a defendant physician and nurse, should not be compelled to disclose to the defendant physician and nurse the terms of a proposed settlement agreement reached between the plaintiffs and the defendant pharmaceutical manufacturer, prior to the issuance of a jury verdict. [read the full summary]

How Close is too Close under Massachusetts Trademark Law?

In a motion for preliminary injunction just decided by the Massachusetts Superior Court, a business named “A-Tech” sought to stop a similar business using the name “2Tech” from continuing to do business under that name in the future.

"A-Tech" is an automotive business on Route 9 in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts that has been operating under the name “A-Tech” for the entire 12 years of its existence. “2Tech” began its automotive business in 2003 on the opposite side of Route 9, about two miles away from “A-Tech.” The Court described the area in which the two businesses operate as “an intensely developed area with small or medium-sized businesses, one after the other, along both sides of Route 9.”

While Massachusetts law permits relief if there is a likelihood of injury to one’s business reputation or a dilution of the distinctiveness of a mark, even in the absence of customer confusion (as opposed to federal law), courts will often still rely substantially on the likelihood of customer confusion in determining whether a trademark is infringing.

In this case, the Court actually did find that the names were similar, and potentially confusingly similar. The Court also found that both “A-Tech” and “2Tech” shared the same market, offered the same goods and services, used the same chain of distribution and advertising, and shared the same set of potential vendors. Having made all those findings, however, the Court then denied the injunction and refused to find that “2Tech” had infringed on “A-Tech’s” good name. Despite all the similarities, the Court found that “A-Tech” had not shown any clear evidence of actual confusion. And, given the large number of businesses along that stretch of Route 9, the Court would not find on its own that actual confusion would exist between the two businesses.

The lesson here is that even if you think a trade name, trademark, or service mark is similar to yours, do not immediately assume that it will be found to be infringing. The analysis, whether under state or federal law, is complex and multi-layered. If you believe that your trade name, trademark or service mark has been infringed, you should speak with an experienced attorney. Not every infringement that looks like a case will ultimately be a case, and the experienced eye will help you sort through the complex world of trade regulation.

Let’s start by explaining what will happen to your estate if you die without a will. If you fail to plan your estate and die without a will, the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will create an estate plan for you. The entire system of “intestate” succession or “descent by distribution” is set forth by statute and is too complex for a detailed discussion here. But some surprising and frequently undesirable results can occur. For instance, the law prescribes both the persons to whom your property will pass and the division of your estate among those persons. Also, the distributions provided by law are inflexible and may not satisfy your desires as to the distribution of your estate. In addition, if your children are minors at the time of your death, a cumbersome and costly legal guardianship will be necessary to determine distributions. [read the full article]