[gui-talk] FS new owner info

[Evelyn Weckerly]

Hi, all,

In view of all the discussion on this list of the recently-filed 
lawsuit by Freedom Scientific against Freedom Box, I thought you all 
would like to be able to contact the new owners of the company. 
Please find attached, a note from the person who sent me the info, 
then the detailed contact info, and for those who may need it, the 
text of the court filing.

I think we need to be careful to stick to fact and our reactions to 
this and that we must at all costs avoid name calling. I believe many 
of us feel so strongly about this that we need to be careful about 
this. I also believe that we ought to urge these people to send 
someone of consequence to our convention to actually talk with 
individual blind people using adaptive technology in order to learn 
from us. I intend to urge that.

Regards,

Evelyn
-------------- next part --------------
Please let WAFRA Investment group know  your discuss and anger with there newly acquired company, Freedom Scientific and their action trying to put out of business a small company run by disabled entrepreneurs, with an unjust and frivolous law suit: Case 8:07-cv-00829-SCB-TGW Document 1 Filed 05/14/2007 Page 1 of 11

The complete document legal suit is presented after Wafra Investment Advisory Group contact information. Inc.

Below are contacts for WAFRA Investment company, who bought Freedom Scientific in the past month.  So please email or fax, or write to them often, that Freedom Scientific should stop and desist their action against SEROTEK CORPORATION
 andd their fine product Freedom Box, or the blind community will retaliate and boycott their products!

Wafra Investment Advisory Group, Inc.
345 Park Avenue, 41st Floor
New York N.Y. 10154-0101
General Inquiries
Tel: (212) 759-3700
Fax: (212) 813-9488
E-mail:
wafra-info at wafra.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Securities Division
Vincent Campagna
Tel: (212) 759-3700
Fax: (212) 813-9488
E-mail:
v.campagna at wafra.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative Investments Division
Fawaz Al-Mubaraki
Tel: (212) 759-3700
Fax: (212) 583-1170
E-mail:
f.al-mubaraki at wafra.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Direct Equity Division
Peter Petrillo
Tel: (212) 759-3700
Fax: (212) 486-2678
E-mail:
p.petrillo at wafra.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Real Estate Division
Edward Ryan
Tel: (212) 759-3700
Fax: (212) 702-8850
E-mail:
e.ryan at wafra.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Private Asset Management Division
Richard Tateossian
Tel: (212) 759-3700
Fax: (212) 753-7705
E-mail:
r.tateossian at wafra.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structured Finance Division
Robert W. Toan
Tel: (212) 759-3700
Fax: (212) 486-2678
E-mail:
r.toan at wafra.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Business and Product Development Division
Monir Barakat
Tel: (212) 759-3700
Fax: (212) 813-9488
E-mail:
m.barakat at wafra.com
contacts.html#top
Wafra Investment Advisory Group, Inc.
345 Park Avenue, 41st Floor New York, New York 10154-0101

entire text of the court filing:
"Case 8:07-cv-00829-SCB-TGW Document 1 Filed 05/14/2007 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

FREEDOM SCIENTIFIC, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
SEROTEK CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Freedom Scientific, Inc. (the "Plaintiff) sues Defendant Serotek
corporation (the "Defendant"), and alleges:
 I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for trademark infringement against Defendant for: (a)
infringement of a federally registered mark under 15 U.S.C. Section 1114(1);
(b) infringement of a common law trademark; and (c) unfair competition under
15 U.S.C. Section 1125. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under
15 U.S.C. Section 1121 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1338(a).

2. The Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 11800 31st Court North, in St. Petersburg, Florida 33716.

3. The Defendant is a Minnesota corporation, with an address of 2400 IDS
Center, Minneapolis, MN 55402 and is doing business in the Middle District
of Florida.
 The Defendant is selling and offering for sale and advertising products
under a name that infringes the Plaintiffs federally-registered trademark
and
has caused those products to be distributed in the Middle District of
Florida with the designation and representation connection wherewith, which
use is
a false designation of origin. The Defendant is accordingly subject to the
personal jurisdiction of this Court and this litigation arises out of or
relates
to the substantial contacts the Defendant has with this state and district.

4. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1391(b)(2) and 1391(c) because the Defendant is subject to personal
jurisdiction in the Middle District of Florida and therefore is deemed to
reside here for venue purposes, and a substantial part of the events or
omissions
giving rise to the claims herein occurred in the Middle District of Florida.

II. COMMON ALLEGATIONS

5. Beginning on May 15, 2000, the Plaintiff adopted the mark "Freedom
Scientific" and shortly thereafter used it in interstate commerce for the
sale of
certain products tailored to blind and low-vision users, including software
that translates the Internet and digital information into Braille or audible
synthesized speech.

6. On April 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of
said mark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

7. On December 18, 2001, said mark was registered in the United States
Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register under the Act of 1946
covering
the use of said mark with the sale of certain products tailored to blind and
low-vision users, including software that translates the Internet and
digital
information into Braille or audible synthesized speech. A true and correct
copy of the registration is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Said
registration
is now outstanding and valid.

8. The Plaintiff has filed with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office an affidavit of use of said mark as required by 15 U.S.C. Section
1058(a),
and said registration is presently valid.

9. The validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark,
registrant's ownership of the mark, and the Plaintiffs exclusive right to
use
said registered mark in commerce for the above mentioned goods are
incontestable under 15 U.S.C. Section 1065 and 15 U.S.C. Section 1115(b), as
the Plaintiff
has filed the required affidavit with the Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks.

10. Continuously since May 15, 2000, the Plaintiff has used the mark
"Freedom Scientific" to identify its products tailored to blind and
low-vision users,
including software that translates the Internet and digital information into
Braille or audible synthesized speech, and to distinguish these products
from
those made or sold by others, by, among other things, prominently displaying
the mark "Freedom Scientific" on the products, their containers, the
displays,
and marketing associated therewith. In addition, the Plaintiff has
prominently displayed said mark on store fronts, letter heads, bills, direct
mailing
advertising, telephone directly advertising, and in periodicals distributed
throughout the United States.

11. The Defendant has infringed the Plaintiffs trademark in interstate
commerce by various acts, including by selling, and offering for sale, an
entire
line of products tailored to blind and low-vision users, including software
that translates the Internet and digital information into Braille or audible
synthesized speech, and advertising these products, under the name and mark
"Freedom Box." Said use of said name and mark by the Defendant is without
permission
or authority of the Plaintiff and said use by the Defendant is likely to
cause confusion, to cause mistake, and to deceive. In fact, said use by the
Defendant
has caused actual confusion, mistake, and deception.

12. All conditions precedent to this action have occurred or have been
waived by the Defendant.

COUNT I-TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

13. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
1-12.

14. The Defendant's heretofore alleged acts of trademark infringement have
been committed with the intent to cause confusion, mistake, and to deceive.

15. Since on or about December 18, 2001, the Plaintiff has given notice that
its mark is registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by
displaying the mark as used with the letter R enclosed within a circle. The
Plaintiff has requested the Defendant to cease and desist from its acts of
trademark infringement and has given the Defendant actual notice of the
Plaintiffs registration, but the Defendant has refused to cease such acts.

16. By reason of the Defendant's acts herein, the Plaintiff has and will
suffer damage to its business, reputation, and good will, and the loss of
sales
the Plaintiff would have made but for the Defendant's acts.

17. The Defendant threatens to continue to do the actions complained of
herein, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to
the Plaintiffs
irreparable damage. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of
compensation which could afford the Plaintiff adequate relief for such
continuing
acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. The
Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries
threatened.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays:

(a) That this Court grant a permanent injunction pursuant to the powers
granted it under 15 U.S.C. Section 1116, enjoining and restraining the
Defendant
and its agents, servants, and employees from directly or indirectly using
the name "Freedom Box" or any other mark, word, or name similar to the
Plaintiffs
mark which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive;

(b) That this Court, pursuant to the powers granted it under 15 U.S.C.
Section 1118, order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers,
receptacles,
and advertisements and other materials in the possession of the Defendant
bearing the mark "Freedom Box" and all plates, molds, matrices, and other
means
of making the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed;

(c) That this Court award the Plaintiff treble the amount of actual damages
suffered by the Plaintiff;

(d) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff;

(e) That this is an exceptional case and that the Plaintiff be awarded its
reasonable attorneys' fees; and

(f) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem
just.

COUNT II - COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

18. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
1-12.

19. Plaintiff has generated common law trademark rights through the
continuous use and adoption of the mark "Freedom Scientific" to identify
products tailored
to blind and low-vision users, including software that translates the
Internet and digital information into Braille or audible synthesized speech.

20. Plaintiff uses the "Freedom Scientific" mark to distinguish its products
from those made or sold by others, by, among other things, prominently
displaying
the mark "Freedom Scientific" on the products, their containers, the
displays, and marketing associated therewith. In addition, the Plaintiff has
prominently
displayed said mark on store fronts, letter heads, bills, direct mailing
advertising, telephone directly advertising, and in periodicals distributed
both
inside and outside the State of Florida.

21. In competition with Plaintiff and in the same trade area, Defendant's
use of "Freedom Box" has occurred in a manner this is likely to cause
confusion
as to the source of the goods among a significant number of persons using
ordinary care and prudence in the purchase of goods.

22. The infringing acts of Defendant, as heretofore alleged, have been
without the consent of Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays:

(a) That this Court grant an injunction enjoining and restraining the
Defendant and its agents, servants, and employees from directly or
indirectly using
the name "Freedom Box" or any other mark, word, or name similar to the
Plaintiffs mark which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive;

(b) That this Court order that all labels, signs, prints, packages,
wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements and other materials in the
possession of the
Defendant bearing the mark "Freedom Box" and all plates, molds, matrices,
and other means of making the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed;

(c) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff;

(d) That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys' fees; and

(e) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem
just.

COUNT III-FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN UNDER THE LANHAM ACT

23. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
1-12.

24. The Defendant has caused goods to enter into interstate commerce with
the designation and representation "Freedom Box" connected therewith. Said
use
of "Freedom Box" is a false designation of origin which is likely to cause
confusion, to cause mistake and to deceive as to the affiliation,
connection,
or association of the Defendant with the Plaintiff as to the origin,
sponsorship, or approval of such goods by the Plaintiff.

25. In fact, said use by the Defendant has caused actual confusion, mistake,
and deception. These acts are in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a), in
that the Defendant has used in connection with goods a false designation of
origin, a false or misleading description and representation of fact which
is likely to cause confusion, and to cause mistake, and to deceive as to the
affiliation, connection, or association of the Defendant with the Plaintiff
and as to the origin, sponsorship, and approval of the Defendant's goods and
commercial activities by the Plaintiff. Said use by the Defendant has caused
actual confusion, mistake, and deception.

26. By reason of the Defendant's acts herein, the Plaintiff has and will
suffer damage to its business, reputation, and good will, and the loss of
sales
the Plaintiff would have made but for the Defendant's acts.

27. The Defendant threatens to continue to do the actions complained of
herein, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to
the Plaintiffs
irreparable damage. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of
compensation which could afford the Plaintiff adequate relief for such
continuing
acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. The
Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries
threatened.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays:

(a) That this Court grant an injunction enjoining and restraining the
Defendant and its agents, servants, and employees from (1) directly or
indirectly
using the word "Freedom Box" or any other mark, word, or name similar to the
Plaintiffs mark which is likely to cause confusion and (2) continuing any
and all acts of unfair competition as herein alleged;

(b) That the Defendant be required to account to the Plaintiff for any and
all profits derived by the Defendant from the sale of its goods and for all
damages
sustained by the Plaintiff by reason of said acts of unfair competition
complained of herein;

(c) That this Court award punitive and exemplary damages against the
Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiff by reason of the Defendant's fraud
and palming
off;

(d) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff; and

(e) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem
just.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

28. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael J. Colitz, III
Trial Counsel
Florida Bar No. 164348
Woodrow H. Pollack
Florida Bar No. 026802
Holland & Knight LLP
100 N. Tampa Street
Suite 4100
Tampa, FL 33601-3644
Tel: 813/227-8500 Fax: 813/229-0134
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF"