Rivals finally reach court

The opening rounds in the legal skirmish between the USA Cricket Association (USACA), the US Council of League Presidents (CLP) and the USACA dissenters were fired last week, with matters at last coming to a head before the US courts.

In the first conference with attorneys for the respective sides, Judge Gold issued an order for parties to meet on September 9, 2005 for a three-hour mediation conference. This will be limited to the attorneys and two representatives from each side. Those representatives are to have the power to enter into anything agreed upon with the other side and have the proxy of the rest of the parties. They should have the power to call and discuss options with the rest of the group during the mediation, but on a limited basis.

The two major issues before the courts were the USACA's suit against the CLP Interim Council, regarding the use of USACA trademarks and brand names which were considered proprietary by the USACA and which represented an unauthorized use of the trademarks, and the two lawsuits filed by USACA and CLP against each other concerning the legality of the 2005 USACA elections, where each side was accusing the other of illegal and unconstitutional actions.

According to observers of the proceedings, Judge Gold was very well versed in the case and even commented that he felt the trademark issues were not too relevant to the action. This opinion would favour the CLP, which had always maintained that their use of the USACA logo was appropriate since CLP was a constitutionally recognized entity under the USACA constitution. The effect of Judge Gold's comments would legitimize CLP under US law, and render it immune to further challenges to its existence.

The remaining legal issue concerning the 2005 USACA elections revolves around the CLP's allegations that the elections were improperly conducted, and the USACA's claim that the improprieties were on the part of the dissenters who are CLP's allies on the issue. The arbitration ordered by Judge Gold is consistent with what CLP and the dissenters have been asking for some time, and they seem to be pleased with Judge Gold's decision. They point out that if a mediated solution is rejected by either party and the matter goes to court, the loser would have to bear the full legal costs of the trial -- something that neither party would relish.