Dayrel Sewell, Esq., MPH Joins Oliver Scholars Exclusive 40-for-40 Club


Dayrel Sewell, Esq., MPH Joins Oliver Scholars Exclusive 40-for-40 Club

 

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is proud to announce that, Dayrel Sewell, Esq. has been selected for the next Oliver Scholars #40-for-40 Alumni Spotlight.The #40-for-40 Alumni Spotlight series, highlights exceptional graduates who have made significant contributions in their chosen fields. This week, Oliver Scholars chose to shine the light on Dayrel Sewell, Class of 1996, a renowned Top Litigation Attorney making waves in the legal landscape.

 

Mr. Sewell’s impressive career trajectory exemplifies dedication, talent, and unwavering commitment to justice. He has consistently earned recognition as a preeminent legal authority, including features on CNN and the esteemed title of Litigation Lawyer of the Year in the USA. Additionally, Mr. Sewell boasts an impressive list of accolades:

 

 

Beyond his legal prowess, Sewell’s journey is marked by a unique blend of academic and medical expertise. Prior to law school, he obtained an M.P.H. from Columbia University and served as a Director for medical research studies. This background undoubtedly contributes to his insightful approach to litigation.

 

Mr. Sewell is a shining example of what alumni of Oliver Scholars can achieve. His dedication to excellence, unwavering commitment to justice, and impressive track record solidify his position as a top litigator. His colleagues at the LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC are incredibly proud of his accomplishments and thrilled to have the opportunity to be a part of his trusted team.

 

This #40-for-40 Alumni Spotlight is just one more notch for Mr. Sewell in his illustrious career and celebrates his commitment to fostering exceptional legal talent. Inspiring stories like Mr. Sewell’s continue to pave the way for future generations of litigators.



Shrouded in Secrecy: LLCs and High-End Real Estate


The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce its latest publication, “Shrouded in Secrecy: LLCs and High-End Real Estate”, appearing on the front page of the September 2016 issue of the Brooklyn Barrister.  The Brooklyn Barrister is the official publication of the Brooklyn Bar Association.

 

LLCs are limited liability companies that shield the owners by creating a personage that acts on behalf of the owners. This shield protects the owners from personal liability, so long as they do not create a nuisance, such as incurring large amounts of debt or causing felonies to be committed. By using LLCs as a conduit, individuals—both civilians and criminals alike—are able to purchase high-value properties while protecting their identities and similarly the funds used in the purchases.

 

The use of LLCs in high-end real estate transactions has increased dramatically in the last 15 years. According to an analysis for the Wall Street Journal performed by Zillow, in 2012 27% of U.S. homes sold in 2012 were bought by LLCs, as opposed to 5 years prior, when this percentage was only 17%. See Alyssa Abkowitz, Psst. Wanna Buy a House? WALL STREET JOURNAL, (Oct. 25, 2012). This growth has continued, and is particularly relevant in larger markets, such as New York.

High End Real Estate

You are encouraged to comment and receive free updates by subscribing to the firm’s Blog and Press Release sections.



Columbia Law Publication: The Increasing Intellectual Property Value of the .COM to Businesses


The LAW FIRM of DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Mr. Dayrel S. Sewell, Esq., MPH, and Ms. Ariel Friedman penned an article entitled, “The Increasing Intellectual Property Value of the .COM to Businesses” that is now published in the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review (STLR).  Mr. Sewell is a proud alumnus of Columbia University and Ms. Friedman is currently a Columbia University Law School student interning at our law firm.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) v. Booking.com demonstrates the changing landscape for trademark law in the internet age. Here, the Court found that a term styled “generic.com” or any other domain name comprised of generic terminology appended by a top-level domain (TLD), such as “.com” or “.net,” may be trademarked if it has a source-identifying, non-generic meaning to consumers.

Columbia Law | Science and Technology Law Review

Writing for the majority in an 8–1 decision, which affirmed the reversal of the TTAB decision, decedent Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reasoned that “[b]ecause Booking.com is not a generic name to consumers, it is not generic.” Therefore, BOOKING.COM was eligible for trademark registration. However, Justice Ginsburg reasoned that where a generic term carries a secondary, distinctive, meaning to consumers, it may be eligible for trademark registration as a descriptive mark. Furthermore, the court rejected a per se rule that a generic term combined with a generic top-level domain, such as “.com,” results in a combination that is necessarily generic, reasoning that “[w]hether any given ‘generic.com’ term is generic … depends on whether consumers in fact perceive that term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing among members of the class.” For example, the Court noted that the USPTO has granted other “generic.com” marks to the principal and supplemental registers, such as “art.com” and “dating.com.” In other words, whether a term is generic or descriptive with secondary meaning should be sensitive to an analysis of consumer perception.

STLR deals with the exciting legal issues surrounding science and technology and is ranked #6 among all tech law journals. Furthermore, STLR is the first Columbia journal to become formally open access, eliminating unnecessary barriers to readership.

The publication represents the continuation of our firm’s commitment to providing value to a wide audience and to providing excellent service to our clients. As always, we encourage your thoughtful comments and insights on our publication. Thank you.



Law Journal Publication: Landlords and Loft space


The LAW FIRM of DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Mr. Dayrel S. Sewell, Esq. and Mr. Lance Willoughby penned an article entitled, “Landlords and Loft space” that is now published in the Richmond County Bar Association’s Spring 2017 Journal.

The Richmond County Bar Association (“RCBA”) was founded in 1909 to provide access to legal services for the Richmond County community. RCBA is dedicated to advancing members’ professional development and promoting the highest standards of excellence in the practice of law. RCBA journal first published in the spring of 1984.  The journal is published quarterly featuring legal articles, book reviews, product reviews or other items of interest to RCBA.

Law Journal Publication: Landlords and Loft space

“Landlords and Loft Space” discusses the complexities of the “NYC Loft Law.” The article provides the legislative history and intent for the creation of NYC Loft Law. Also, the article discusses the negatives and positives for landlords and tenants under the NYC Loft Law. The NYC Loft Law is unique and ought to be understood by those who possess and/or plan to possess loft interest.

A willing, abiding landlord can legalize a building into residential loft spaces by taking the steps to receive a Certificate of Occupancy. See Legalization Process, http://www.nyc.gov/html/loft/html/legalization/legalization.shtml (last on visited Feb. 11, 2017). The landlord must file an alteration application with the Department of Buildings (“DOB”), obtain an approved alteration permit from the DOB, and then perform the described work in the permit as approved by DOB inspectors. Prior to the building improvements, landlords must go through a Narrative Statement Process (“NSP”). NSP is a planning process that involves the landlord, tenant, and Loft board so that any objections to the landlord’s legalization process can be heard. Tenants’ objections usually relate to unreasonably interference of the tenant’s enjoyment of the loft space during the landlord’s improvements. Alternately, Landlords can file an alternate plan during an NSP. Once the NPS is approved, the landlord can proceed with the improvement process. The loft board regulates the landlord’s deadlines as required by the alteration permit. Landlords can apply for deadline extensions if good faith efforts are proven and they reasonably could not comply with the law for reasons beyond its control. Failure to meet deadlines and apply for an extension will result in high fines against the landlord from the Loft Board.

This publication represents the continuation of our firm’s commitment to providing value to the greater NYC community and service excellence to our clients.



Winner – Litigation Lawyer of the Year


The LAW FIRM of DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Dayrel S. Sewell, Esq. has been selected as the outright winner and recipient in the category of – Litigation – Lawyer of the Year – USA by Finance Monthly.  Finance Monthly selection criteria is dynamic, relying on matters such as legal expertise and innovation; peer recognition and personal achievement; and involvement in significant legal cases and legal activity.

The Finance Monthly Law Awards 2017 recognizes the achievements of law firms, lawyers, barristers and those connected to the legal world who have a proven track record in delivering results for their clients over the past twelve months.  The awards are divided into individual and form categories.  Each category has been selected to represent the diversity of skills and knowledge that the profession has to offer clients across the globe. The voting and nomination is inclusive consisting of a three-month process.  Voting procedures are sent to Finance Monthly’s readership database – over 195,880 contacts.  All readers evaluate the nominees based on all the Law Awards criteria. This accomplishment for Dayrel S. Sewell, Esq., by Finance Monthly – Law Awards, exemplifies innovation in client care; strategic thinking and planning; and superior qualifications.

The Finance Monthly is a trusted source for business and corporate professionals, specifically legal practitioners, either in-house counsel or private practice.



The National Black Lawyers – Top 100


National Black Lawyers Top 100, best lawyer, best attorney

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Dayrel S. Sewell, Esq. has been selected for inclusion into The National Black Lawyers – Top 100 Lawyers, an honor given to only a select group of lawyers for their superior skills and qualifications in the field.

 

The National Black Lawyers – Top 100 is an elite, professional honorary organization composed of the Top 100 Black Lawyers from each state who serve individuals, families and businesses needing attorneys to represent them in the American legal system. Only The Top 100 lawyers from each state who are actively practicing in the select specialty practices are eligible for invitation. Invitees must demonstrate superior qualifications, leadership skills, and results as a legal professional. The selection process for this honor is based on a multi-phase process based upon objective and uniformly applied criteria which includes peer nominations combined with third party research.

 

The National Black Lawyers provides accreditation to distinguished attorneys, and also aims to provide essential legal news, information, and continuing education to lawyers across the United States.

 

With the selection of Dayrel S. Sewell, Esq. by The National Black Lawyers – Top 100, Dayrel has shown that he exemplifies superior qualifications, leadership skills, and client results. As The National Black Lawyers – Top 100 is an essential source of networking and information for attorneys throughout the nation, the final result of the selection process is a credible and comprehensive list of the most outstanding lawyers chosen to represent their state or region.

 

Resoucre by:- http://www.nbltop100.org/profile-view/Dayrel/Sewell/10564/



Advanced Technology and Global Security: Friend or Foe?


 
 

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Mr. Sewell will be the moderator of the upcoming panel discussion, Advanced Technology and Global Security: Friend or Foe, held by The Johns Hopkins University NYC Law Affinity Group at the Princeton Club in New York City at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2016. For registration details and more, click on the event name above.
We have seen the emergence of technology into every facet of our daily lives. Social media and cell phones are indisputably ubiquitous. The result, in part, is the compilation of vast amounts of data on each individual. Access to this data gives unprecedented insight into our privacy by government, industry and the criminal element. How they choose to use this data is of concern to all.
People are increasingly aware of the dilemma between privacy and global security. According to the Wall Street Journal, FBI Director James Comey said that the FBI paid more than $1 million for a hacking tool that opened the iPhone of a terrorist gunman in San Bernardino, California.
The rapid growth of technology has created unexplored legal challenges, civil liabilities, social consequences, and potential for incursion of individual privacy. Couple these issues with the legitimate requirements of law enforcement and the intelligence community and you have a variety of questions around law, policy and practice. Join the panel with Mr. Sewell in a dynamic discussion covering all of the issues outlined and more!

Advanced Technology and Global Security

 


The Duality of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus Decision


The Duality of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus Decision

 

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce its latest publication, “The Duality of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus Decision”, appearing in the 2015 American Bar Association Securities Litigation Fall Newsletter ( See The Duality of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus Decision ). The Duality of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus Decision Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder prohibit, among other things, the making of untrue and misleading statements of fact in connection with the purchase and sale of any security. In light of this prohibition, a seminal question is who has the liability for making the untrue or misleading statement? The United States Supreme Court addressed this question in its decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 131 S. Ct. 2296 (2011). The Janus decision made an impact on the securities fraud landscape. It initially appeared to be a well-constructed guiding principle, yet different courts have come to disparate conclusions with respect to its application; thus creating the “duality” that exists – ironically – in the aftermath of the Janus decision. In Janus, the Court held that only a person who has the “ultimate authority” over a statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it, can be the “maker” of the statement for purposes of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The Janus Court held that the investment advisor to a mutual fund cannot be primarily liable under Section 10(b) for statements made in in the fund’s prospectus because the investment advisor did not have the ultimate authority in making the statements. The Court held that to “make” these statements for purposes of rule 10b-5, the alleged maker must have “ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it,” and that the fund managers did not have that authority. Janus, 131 S. Ct. at 2302. The Court concluded saying it is the entity that has control over the content of the statements and the authority of how and when to make them, that will have the primary liability. Id. at 2301. The government’s broader view of interpreting the word “make” as “create” thereby extending the primary liability to all parties who had a significant role in the creation of the misinterpretations, and the dissent’s broader view of interpreting the “maker” based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, were both rejected. Id. at 2311. You are encouraged to comment and receive free updates by subscribing to the firm’s Blog and Press Release sections.

 


Redskins Trademark Fumble


Redskins Trademark Fumble

 
 

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Messrs. Sewell’s and Fine’s recent, featured publication, “The “Redskins” Trademark: Turn-over on Downs”, appears in this month’s IPFrontline newsletter (Trademark Turn-over on Downs).

 

Redskins Trademark Fumble

 

For decades, the National Football League’s “REDSKINS” trademarks have been under siege. Activists, concerned citizens, Native American groups, lawyers, and politicians have boisterously levied meritorious arguments against a trademark that has defined an American professional football team for almost a century. While this coalition has attracted a great deal of societal attention, it has only recently secured judicial support.

 

For decades, the NFL has stood firmly behind its “Redskin” trademark, as has the majority of Redskins fans. The term “redskin” subsequently no longer enjoys widespread use in America as a word describing the Native American people. The case, Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse, offers an extensive analysis of the term and its implications. After carefully weighing the evidence, the Eastern District of Virginia ultimately determined that the term “redskin” is disparaging to the Native American population, and is subsequently undeserving of continued federal registration.

 

In sum, the Eastern District of Virginia affirmed the TTAB determination that the term “redskins” would not enjoy continued registration as a trademark on the basis that the term is, and was always, likely to disparage a “substantial composite” of the Native American population.

 

Today, it is largely undisputed that the term “redskin” is, by definition, offensive as a descriptor for Native Americans. Fast-forwarding, several years later, the NFL’s Washington Redskins team is now known as the Washington Commanders; it was only a matter of time before the team’s ownership wilted under the mounting legal, economic, and public policy pressures.

 

You are encouraged to comment and receive free updates by subscribing to the firm’s Blog and Press Release sections.

 


Musical Litigation Groove


Musical Litigation Groove

 
 

Musical Litigation Groove – The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Messrs. Sewell’s and Ng’s recent, featured publication, “Pharell Williams and Robin Thicke told they “Got To Give It Up””, appears in this month’s IPFrontline newsletter. In March 2015, a federal jury in Los Angeles ordered Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, singers of the hit song “Blurred Lines,” to pay over $7 million in damages and earned profits to the family of Marvin Gaye, singer of the chart-topping 1977 song “Got To Give It Up,” after determining that the two were guilty of copyright infringement. See Pharrell Williams, et al. v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., et al., 2015 WL 1476803 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2015). The verdict adds increasing uncertainty for the music industry with the finding of substantial similarity between the two songs, and hence copyright infringement, but its ramifications may have also spawned a shift in copyright infringement litigation that puts musicians and record labels on alert. Musical Litigation Groove The test for copyright infringement relied on whether a reasonable and average lay observer would recognize an alleged infringing piece of work as having been appropriated from a copyrighted work. The jury had to decide whether the two songs were similar enough in any way to establish some evidence of copying. The jury was not to give any weight to the amount of elements that were dissimilar or those dissimilar elements themselves. This particular instruction proves challenging in that it is a perspicacious analysis to accurately explain to jurors and just as difficult, if not harder, for jurors to properly apply. The music industry argues that this current test severely limits and restricts an artist’s ability to create music. In this particular case, the jury relied heavily on the composition of the sheet music in reaching a decision of infringement. From the sheet music, along with conflicting testimonies on the similarities and differences of the two songs, the jury concluded that the two songs were sufficiently similar. However, what the jury precisely found to be similar remains unknown. There are many elements in all music that are not embodied by the sheet music, including tone, mood, style, and feel, yet play an integral part in forming the identity of the song. These elements simply cannot be seen on a piece of paper. These essential aspects of a song help to create expressive, original works, but at times are non-dispositive in such analyses for copyright infringement. You are encouraged to comment and receive free updates by subscribing to the firm’s Blog and Press Release sections.

 

Robin Thicke Pharrell Williams Pay 5 million marvin Gaye Estate News