With more than 20 years of experience across multiple industries and functional areas, deMoulpied has particular expertise in organizations with complex technical products. Combined, his prior positions have required a spectrum of skills in corporate strategy, operations improvement, product quality, and revenue cycle management. He has an impressive history of utilizing data driven problem solving (Lean Six Sigma) and project management (PMP and CSM) to achieve strategic goals surrounding customer satisfaction, operational efficiency and improved profit. DeMoulpied has a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Management from the United States Air Force Academy and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Dayton in Marketing and International Business. He served six years with the USAF overseeing the development of technology used on fighter aircraft and the E-3 Surveillance aircraft, finishing his career honorably as Captain. DeMoulpied comes to LSI from the Private Client Services practice of Ernst & Young where he managed strategy & operations improvement engagements for privately held client businesses. Some of his prior roles include VP of strategic development, director of strategic initiatives, and Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt at OptumHealth, UnitedHealth Group’s health services business, as well as Lean Six Sigma Black Belt at General Electric, where he applied operations improvement principles to customer service, supply chain and product development. A successful entrepreneur, deMoulpied is also the founder of PrestoFresh, a Cleveland-based e-commerce food/grocery business. ELK GROVE VILLAGE, Ill. – As of today, the Power Fleet division of Penray will split the country and form two regions for its heavy duty chemical product offering. AdvertisementClick Here to Read MoreAdvertisement To form the new territory management, Penray will promote two long-time employees from their existing sales roles as regional sales managers. Joe Long will assume the position of director of sales, east region, and Mike Goodheart will become the director of sales, west region. “We feel, by dividing the country, we will be able to streamline sales efforts for our OEM and traditional distribution partners while providing the necessary management support for our existing regional sales managers,” said Randy Fowler, vice president of sales and marketing.,Lubrication Specialties Inc. (LSI), manufacturer of Hot Shot’s Secret brand of performance additives and oils, recently announced the expansion of senior leadership. Steve deMoulpied joins LSI as the company’s chief operating officer (COO). AdvertisementClick Here to Read MoreAdvertisement LSI President Brett Tennar says, “Steve’s success in developing operational strategies that improves the bottom line, builds teamwork, reduces waste and ensures quality product development and distribution checks many of the boxes of what we were looking for in a COO. This, coupled with his career in the Air Force working with highly technical systems and his in-depth understanding of Lean Six Sigma and Business Process Management sealed our offer. As our tagline states, our products are Powered by Science. This data driven approach is one reason why our company has grown exponentially as we employ the most advanced technology to product development. I am confident that Steve is the right person to drive operational strategy for our diverse and growing brands.” Advertisement
Schutz (UK) Ltd and another v Delta Containers Ltd and another: Chancery Division (Mr Justice Briggs): 5 July 2011 The claimant was a company manufacturing bulk containers (IBCs). Each IBC consisted of a metal cage, into which a plastic bottle capable of holding 1,000 litres of liquid would be placed. The bottles wore out faster than the cages. The defendant company had established a business in which it would fit a new bottle, not necessarily of the claimant’s manufacture, to the cages (the altered IBCs). The claimants displayed their name and logo conspicuously on the cages and less conspicuously on the bottles. The defendants used a disclaimer sticker on each IBC. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant, on the ground that the claimant’s business activities constituted trade mark infringement and passing off. The claimant contended that when the defendant fitted an IBC made by the claimant with a bottle made by another company, it was infringing the claimant’s trade marks in relation to the bottle and the IBC as a whole. It further claimed that the defendant’s conduct was sufficient to constitute passing off of its altered IBCs as the IBCs of the claimant, by giving the impression that the bottle was manufactured or approved by the claimant and that the IBC as a whole was the claimant’s product. The defendant contended that the continued appearance of the claimant’s trade marks on the IBC constituted no more than the legitimate use of the trade mark in relation to the cage alone, and was neither a use nor a misrepresentation in relation to the bottle or the IBC as a whole. The defendants further contended that their use of disclaimers was sufficient to avoid the allegation of infringement of the claimant’s trade mark. They submitted that where applicable their customers were fully aware that they were purchasing an altered IBC, and that where the IBCs were sold on, the eventual purchasers were indifferent to the manufacturing source of the different component parts of the IBC. The claim would be allowed.(1) On the facts, the average end user of an IBC would be likely to conclude that the claimant’s trade marks on the cage were being used in relation to the bottle as well and hence the entire IBC. Were the IBC to fail, it was likely that they would consider that the claimant was to blame. The appearance of the claimant’s marks on the cage, alongside a disclaimer, would be such to create in the average consumer the impression that the marks were being used in relation to the IBC and the bottle, rather than merely the cage. Consequently, the claim of trade mark infringement would be made out in relation to the bottles and the IBCs as a whole. (see , - of the judgment). On the facts, infringement of the claimant’s trade mark had occurred (see  of the judgment). OFT v Officers Club  EWHC 1080 applied. (2) A successful claim in passing off did not require any demonstration that the defendant’s product would be of lower quality or more prone to failure than the claimant’s product. Likelihood of damage could lie in the fact that a purchaser would be likely to blame the wrong party for a failure or defect if it were to occur (see  of the judgment). On the evidence, passing off had been proven. Were any defects to arise in the IBCs sold by the defendant, they would most likely be blamed by users on the claimant. On the evidence, none of the disclaimers used by the defendant would be sufficient to remedy that misrepresentation. It would not matter whether there was a level of choice for end-level users as to which IBCs they received, nor would it matter whether the eventual consumers had any preference as to which supplier of IBCs was used (see , - of the judgment). On the evidence, passing off had occurred (see  of the judgment). Lindsay Lane (instructed by SNR Denton) for the claimants. Aubrey Craig (instructed by Clough & Willis) for the defendants. Associated Newspapers plc v Insert Media Ltd  3 All ER 535 applied; Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc  1 All ER 873 applied; Warnink (Erven) BV v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd  2 All ER 927 considered. Infringement – Sale of reconditioned goods
The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision to throw out a widow’s delayed application to claim from her late husband’s estate.In Cowan v Foreman, Lady Justice Asplin said Mr Justice Mostyn was ‘plainly wrong’ to disregard the application as it was made 17 months after the six-month period, set out by the 1975 Inheritance Act, had expired.The appeal judge said the time limit was not intended to have a disciplinary element and the judge was wrong to seek ‘good reason’ to justify a delay.Mostyn J’s decision had also called into question the validity of so-called ‘stand-still’ agreements where parties come to an informal arrangement about not meeting deadlines. The appeal judgment appears to endorse these agreements.The claimant had brought a claim against the £16m estate of her deceased husband, who had not made outright provision for her but made her the principal beneficiary of two discretionary trusts.Mostyn J accepted that the relevant delay was 13 months, but concluded there was no justification for it and that the ‘in the modern era of civil ligation the limit of excusable delay should be measured in weeks, or, at most, a few months’.That conclusion was muddied around the time of the judgment when, in another case about inheritance claim delays, a 25-year wait to make a claim was allowed by the court. In Bhusate, Chief Master Marsh had criticised the joint application of Inheritance Act claims with the sanctions regime characterised in the Denton judgment, saying that approach involved ‘conflating issues that, if they are related, are at best distant cousins’.In her judgment on the Cowan appeal, Asplin LJ backed that view, stressing that unlike the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules, the six-month time limit was not to be enforced for its own sake. She added it was necessary to decide whether an applicant’s claims has a real prospect of success rather than a fanciful one.On stand-still agreements, Asplin LJ said that without prejudice negotiations between parties, rather than the issue of proceedings, should be encouraged.‘Although the potential claimant will have to take a risk if an application is made subsequently to extend time in circumstances where negotiations have failed, if both parties have been legally represented, it seems to me that it would be unlikely that the court would refuse to endorse the approach.’Lady Justice King, agreeing the claimant’s appeal should be allowed, distanced herself from the comments of Mostyn J, who had said the practice of stand-still arrangements should be ended.But she added: ‘I should stress however, that if parties choose the ‘stand-still’ route, there should be clear written agreement setting out the terms/duration of such an agreement and each of the potential parties should be included in the agreement.’
Romelu Lukaku deflects the ball in his own net. PHOTO: Reuters The Europa League and its predecessor UEFA remained reserved for Sevilla.The Spanish team also won its 6th final in 14 years, and the star of his rival “Inter” Romelu Lukaku had a solid contribution to that.It was the Belgian citizen who scored the winning goal for the opponent, deflecting the ball into the net for the final 3: 2 in the 74th minute.This is how the final in Cologne, which started so well for Lukaku, started (Germany hosted the final corona phase of the Europa League). ended dramatically for the giant.It was Lukaku who opened the score for “Inter” in the 5th minute from a penalty. By the 33rd minute, “Sevilla” reversed the course of events with goals by Luc de Jong.In the 36th minute, the defender of the Italian grand Diego Godin scored for 2: 2. And so to get to Lukaku’s own goal, which brought a new trophy in the tournament for “Sevilla”.It is hardly a consolation for the Belgian that he broke the record of the great Ronaldo by hitting the right goal.In his debut season for “Inter” – 1997/1998, the Brazilian scored 34 times. This was the best achievement of an Inter player so far.Lukaku replaced Ronaldo with 35 goals. He scored two of them at Ludogorets in the 1/16 finals of the Europa League.