Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank

Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank, 475 F.Supp.2d 357, was a case brought to the United States district court, S.D. New York and decided on February 21, 2007. The case eventually allowed Wikipedia to be used as a legitimate source.

Background

“The plaintiff, Alfa Corporation (“Alfa Corp.”), is a financial services company based in Montgomery, Alabama that operates throughout the United States. The company's main business is the provision of insurance and reinsurance, but Alfa Corp. subsidiaries and related companies also provide banking services, commercial leasing, benefits, and realty and building services. The corporation holds a number of federally registered trademarks incorporating its name.”[1]

“The defendants Alfa Bank and Alfa Capital Markets (USA), Inc. (collectively, “Alfa Bank”) are components of a Russia-based financial services group, Alfa Group, with services in Europe, Central Asia, and more recently in the United States. The company provides a range of financial services including commercial and investment banking, brokerage, and insurance.”[2]

Controversy

“Alfa Bank's name is a translation or transliteration of the company's Russian name (Альфа-Банк), The plaintiff Alfa Corp. alleged that the defendants' use of the name Alfa Bank would harm its business and is likely to cause “confusion, mistake, or deception of the trade and public” as a result of the confusion of the two names and the attribution of one company's actions and services to the other. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' conduct constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal law, under §§ 1114(1), 1125(a)(1)(A) of Title 15 of the United States Code, and trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution under the common law.”[2]

Plaintiff Alfa Corp. sought to introduce the expert testimony of, Constantine Muravnik. Mr. Muravnik is to testify as to the transliteration of the Russian name into English. The defendants Alfa Bank objected to the introductions of the expert witness and sought to have the testimony excluded.

Discussion

The plaintiff sought to introduce the expert testimony of Mr. Muravnik regarding the proper transliteration of the defendant company’s name. Mr. Muravnik is a native Russian speaker who is now Senior Lector in Slavic Languages and Literatures specializing in Russian at Yale University. He has taught Russian since 1991 and also worked for over ten years as a Russian/English interpreter and translator. Mr. Muravnik holds Master's Degrees in Russian Linguistics and Literature from Moscow State University and in Slavic Languages and Literatures from Yale University; he is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Yale.[3]

“The sum and substance of Mr. Muravnik's Report and his deposition is that the “best way to render the name ... in English” is as “Alpha Bank,” rather than “Alfa Bank.” In formulating this opinion, Mr. Muravnik relies largely on his background and experience as “an educated native speaker of Russian.” Mr. Muravnik's report also references The Transliteration of Modern Russian for English-Language Publications, by J. Thomas Shaw (the “Shaw treatise”), which he calls the most “authoritative” book on the subject, and an entry on “Transliteration of Russian Into English,” from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Mr. Muravnik also consulted informally with a colleague in the Slavic Languages Department at Yale. For examples of transliteration of the word Mr. Muravnik drew heavily on online sources, including the internet version of the Russian newspaper Pravda, and the website of Human Rights House, an international non-governmental organization.”[3]

The defendants object to Mr. Muravnik’s testimony on the grounds that his opinions should be excluded because they are based on “inherently unreliable” internet sources. The defendants cite both Mr. Muravnik's references to Wikipedia and his use of internet sites such as the online version of Pravda.

Holding

The court held that the use of internet sources (in general or the specific ones used by Mr. Muravnik) in forming the basis of expert testimony is not inherently unreliable. The court cited a recent and highly publicized analysis in the magazine Nature which found that the error rate of Wikipedia entries was not significantly greater than in those of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Jim Giles, Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head (Dec. 14, 2005)[4] (finding that “the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.”)[5]

Furthermore, the court noted that, “the defendants did not point to any actual errors in the entry cited by Mr. Muravnik. Thus, despite reasonable concerns about the ability of anonymous users to alter Wikipedia entries the information provided there is not so inherently unreliable as to render inadmissible any opinion that references it.”[6]

The Plaintiff Alfa Corp. was represented by lead counsel, Juan C. Basombrio, Esq. of Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

References

  1. ↑ Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank, 475 F. Supp. 2d 357, 358-9 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
  2. 1 2 Id. at 359.
  3. 1 2 Id. at 361.
  4. ↑ http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
  5. ↑ Id. at 362-3.
  6. ↑ Id. at 363.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/12/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.