Link with the sentence from the Court (translated by Google): translate.google.pt/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=pt-PT&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsrv85.tjrj.jus.br%2FconsultaProcessoWebV2%2FconsultaProc.do%3Fv%3D2%26numProcesso%3D2007.001.090861-7%26FLAGNOME%3DS%26tipoConsulta%3Dpublica%26back%3D1%26PORTAL%3D1%26v%3D2
During many years the company of Marcus Werneck was the representative of PDIC in Brazil.
During that time PDIC was the biggest concurrent of PADI (who has one office in Brazil).
According with the sentence PADI defamade (by email) the company of Marcus Werneck with the intention to destroy the concurrence.
If you will view the full sentence (this is the second sentence, now formulated from a Brazilian high level court) , the judges were very hard with PADI for the crime of defamation .
Now PADI is obligated to pay to Marcus R $100.000,00 and to publicize in diving magazines for a period of 12 months the full version of the sentence formulated by the court.
Just a little part of the text (translated by Google): It is deplorable that a company the size of the defendant [PADI] adopt such unfair practices, and without any shame, as severely detrimental to the activity developed by a company, leading to its collapse, and forcing its managing partner to move away from the activity that developed so successfully for so many years. The greater evil of the offense of defamation is that there is no remedy able to undo its effects entirely. Credibility and trust take years to be conquered, and in the case, it took two emails to be lost unfairly. There was the decision of anticipatory protection means to prevent the damage that the defendants deliberately wanted to lead authors.
Full sentence translated by Google:
Case No.:
0092704-83.2007.8.19.0001 (2007.001.090861-7)
Type of Movement:
Sentence
Description:
Case No.: 2007.001.090861-7 PART AUTHOR: WERNECK RECREATIONAL DIVING LTD AND ANOTHER PART RE: CLAUDIO OSWALDO Brandileone and other settlements conciliation hearings, and trial On November 17, 2011, on time, in this courtroom Judgement, in the presence of the Judge, Dr. Gustavo QUINTANILHA Telles de Menezes, was made the trading style, which responded to the parties and their lawyers. For the plaintiff was told it was a partner and legal representative of the person author, who has always been regularly certified by the PDIC is authorized to certify courses that dives through the international institution, the regularity with which the international institution is essential, because certification provided that this depended on to be accepted at all dive sites in the world, who acted in this activity for more than 20 years, including at times in partnership with the defendants, in situations with the government and the Navy, that when the facts There was a competition between the parties, because the first defendant is a larger certification, which competed with the PDIC, the second defendant that the representative in Brazil, the e-mail that ended its activity is one that is on pages. 79/81, that the information contained therein are not true, but were released in the market dive, blasting the credibility of the author, that people began to fear for the acceptance of the certificate provided by the author company, which led to the interruption of their activities, that the witness no longer works in this business because of these facts, that the emails joined in the action damages reported demonstrations of students and acquaintances of the market became aware of negative disclosures made by the defendants. Defendant was told by the party that insisted on rogatory. By MM. Judge was given the following sentence: 'This is a lawsuit filed by the diving company and its managing partner in the face of diving certification company and its managing partner, which claims that because of false information communicated to the author by e- mail and posted on the market, the company defaming the author, and business activities were interrupted just because there was a breach of credibility in the market, there is no chance the company's operations author. It states that the information is totally untrue, they consisted of questioning the correctness of the representation of the company certifying the author of another competitor of the defendant, in Brazil. Ask the obligation to refrain from disclosure of the contents of the letter sent to the second defendant for the first defendant, as well as publication of the retraction Diving magazine, to give notoriety to the regularity of the activity of authors and the validity of licenses already issued by the PDIC Brazil. Arguing defendant contests the preliminary part of illegitimacy passive, would be responsible for PDIC International and, in substance, alleges that the company actually author served many years in Brazil, but in April 2007, at an international meeting industry regulatory agency , a representative of the PADI International have taken note of irregularities of the activities of the authors and their relationship with the PDIC International, communicated to the defendants that only made known to the author of the events. Attaching, action between the same parties, with the same factual basis, in which the authors call for compensation in respect of property damage, lost and emerging as well as moral damages. Is the report, I decide. I reject the preliminary passive illegitimacy as expressly indicated in the company name first reverse its correspondence to a foreign company, as well as conduct because there expressly stated to the Brazilian company and the second defendant, its managing partner. Unnecessary to produce any other evidence, notably the issuance of letters rogatory, since both actions are sufficiently educated to international documents with certified translations as well because they met the defendants to obtain the documents they wanted national or international, there is no absolute need that the evidence was made by testimony, by contrast, could and should have been made by the retrieved document, translated and joined the case. After verifying the assumptions valid formation and development process, and the conditions for the legitimate exercise of the right of action, I will now analyze the merits. The documents attached on pages. 28/44 and 46/55, collated with the abundant production of documentary evidence in both case and, moreover, the express recognition of the defendant in self defense, the long years of work by the second author in the area, leave no doubt that the author was regular with the PDIC, upon issuance of e-mail from fl. 79, signed by second defendant and the e-mail from fl. 81, signed by John C. Fine. Defendants did not bring any proof that the signer of fl. 81 was actually a lawyer, represented the PDIC International PADI or, indeed, there is no proof that that person exists. Indeed, the e-mail from fl. 79 is in manifest grave act of irresponsibility and offensive to the honor and dignity of the second author and his company. There is no doubt that the acts of fl. 79/81, Brandileone committed by Claudius, the second defendant in the exercise of PADI direction of the company in Brazil, were no more than an intentional maneuver aimed at undermining the credibility of the authors in the market dive. As I have proven that the defendants committed a serious act of unfair competition, achieving purposely empty the clientele of the authors, defamation and practice, thus removing them from the market, as it did. It is unfortunate that a company the size of a defendant to adopt such unfair practices, and without any shame, as severely detrimental to the activity developed by a company, leading to its collapse, and forcing its managing partner to move away from the activity that has developed with both successful for so many years. The greater evil of the offense of defamation is that there is no remedy able to undo its effects entirely. Credibility and trust take years to be conquered, and in the case, it took two emails to be lost unfairly. There was the decision of anticipatory protection means to prevent the damage that the defendants deliberately wanted to lead authors. Barbosa says, Prayer in the work the young men that Justice delayed is not justice. In the case of authors, there is no way to do full justice, because there is no way, by court order, undo the damage caused to the defendants, however, is rather like trying to compensate for it. First step is to respond to the many public demonstrations proven especially on pages. 169/244 compensation action of the case to determine that the defendant proceeds to make public the true facts, namely that of Brazil PADI, its agent, CLAUDIO OSWALDO Brandileone SON deliberately committed an act of defamation against WERNECK Recreational Diving TOURISM AND LEISURE LTD, as well as against its managing partner directly affected, MARCUS DE AGUIAR WERNECK, disseminating false information that would not be regular both before the PDIC International information is untrue, without any credible factual support, with the only widespread and exclusive purpose of practicing unfair competition, undermine the credibility of those with its customers and thereby remove them from the market. Such disclosure should be made as required in item (ii) fl.14 for twelve consecutive months, provided that this company must be ordered to comply with the determination of this Judgement, for the account and several liability of the defendants, that the price publication medium adopted by this magazine. The publication will consist of full disclosure of this sentence. There is also the repair material, which, in fixed income amount calculated between the last balance sheet or income until proven before that date contained in the e-mail from fl. 79, multiplied by the number of months that passed before the first publication in this particular sentence. The material will be compensation paid to legal entities and allocated in society according to its status. There are obvious moral damages to be compensated. The moral damages is punitive teaching, but can not transmute itself into a source of unjust enrichment to the plaintiff. Difficult task of measuring the lesion to the right of personality, being sure how the first author was struck in his honor objective, ie, its reputation in the market, the second author was also reached in the innermost portion of the right personality , that is, it was unfair to tax personal suffering, improper removal of the activity and had chosen to perform successfully, these facts can not be overlooked. I understand how sufficient and reasonable, all things considered, moral damages in the amount of $ 100,000.00 for each of the authors, because the defendants jointly. I emphasize that the second defendant's liability is direct about the facts, not having acted in performance of the simple representation of the defendant. That said, upheld the claims made in both actions, resolution of the merits, according to art. 269, item I of the Code of Civil Procedure, to convict the defendants jointly to pay $ 100,000.00 to each of the authors, by way of moral damages, the defendants are ordered jointly and severally pay the plaintiff the amount of income calculated between the last balance sheet or income until proven before that date contained in the e-mail from fl. 79, multiplied by the number of months that passed before the first publication in this particular sentence, given the settlement of sentence, fiscal balance if clear and complete. The material will be compensation paid to legal entities and allocated in society according to its status. Condemns the defendants, jointly and severally, to assume responsibility for the full publication of this sentence (and not the minutes) as required in item (ii) fl.14 for twelve consecutive months, the Diving Magazine, provided that this review must be ordered to comply the determination of this Judgement, for the account and several liability of the defendants, that the average price publication adopted by this magazine. Failure to comply with this obligation within 10 days shall entail specific performance, with the publication determined by the court, with implementation of the assets of the defendants to pay it, and also additional fine of $ 100,000.00. I condemn the defendant to pay part of costs and attorney's fees, which fixed at ten percent of the value of the conviction. No appeal for suspension, be it Article 475-J of the Code of Civil Procedure. Res judicata, let down and file it is. Posted in audience. Enjoined those present. Register '. Nothing more, this was closed. I mat.01/31514, TJ-I typed. GUSTAVO QUINTANILHA Telles de Menezes Judge
During many years the company of Marcus Werneck was the representative of PDIC in Brazil.
During that time PDIC was the biggest concurrent of PADI (who has one office in Brazil).
According with the sentence PADI defamade (by email) the company of Marcus Werneck with the intention to destroy the concurrence.
If you will view the full sentence (this is the second sentence, now formulated from a Brazilian high level court) , the judges were very hard with PADI for the crime of defamation .
Now PADI is obligated to pay to Marcus R $100.000,00 and to publicize in diving magazines for a period of 12 months the full version of the sentence formulated by the court.
Just a little part of the text (translated by Google): It is deplorable that a company the size of the defendant [PADI] adopt such unfair practices, and without any shame, as severely detrimental to the activity developed by a company, leading to its collapse, and forcing its managing partner to move away from the activity that developed so successfully for so many years. The greater evil of the offense of defamation is that there is no remedy able to undo its effects entirely. Credibility and trust take years to be conquered, and in the case, it took two emails to be lost unfairly. There was the decision of anticipatory protection means to prevent the damage that the defendants deliberately wanted to lead authors.
Full sentence translated by Google:
Case No.:
0092704-83.2007.8.19.0001 (2007.001.090861-7)
Type of Movement:
Sentence
Description:
Case No.: 2007.001.090861-7 PART AUTHOR: WERNECK RECREATIONAL DIVING LTD AND ANOTHER PART RE: CLAUDIO OSWALDO Brandileone and other settlements conciliation hearings, and trial On November 17, 2011, on time, in this courtroom Judgement, in the presence of the Judge, Dr. Gustavo QUINTANILHA Telles de Menezes, was made the trading style, which responded to the parties and their lawyers. For the plaintiff was told it was a partner and legal representative of the person author, who has always been regularly certified by the PDIC is authorized to certify courses that dives through the international institution, the regularity with which the international institution is essential, because certification provided that this depended on to be accepted at all dive sites in the world, who acted in this activity for more than 20 years, including at times in partnership with the defendants, in situations with the government and the Navy, that when the facts There was a competition between the parties, because the first defendant is a larger certification, which competed with the PDIC, the second defendant that the representative in Brazil, the e-mail that ended its activity is one that is on pages. 79/81, that the information contained therein are not true, but were released in the market dive, blasting the credibility of the author, that people began to fear for the acceptance of the certificate provided by the author company, which led to the interruption of their activities, that the witness no longer works in this business because of these facts, that the emails joined in the action damages reported demonstrations of students and acquaintances of the market became aware of negative disclosures made by the defendants. Defendant was told by the party that insisted on rogatory. By MM. Judge was given the following sentence: 'This is a lawsuit filed by the diving company and its managing partner in the face of diving certification company and its managing partner, which claims that because of false information communicated to the author by e- mail and posted on the market, the company defaming the author, and business activities were interrupted just because there was a breach of credibility in the market, there is no chance the company's operations author. It states that the information is totally untrue, they consisted of questioning the correctness of the representation of the company certifying the author of another competitor of the defendant, in Brazil. Ask the obligation to refrain from disclosure of the contents of the letter sent to the second defendant for the first defendant, as well as publication of the retraction Diving magazine, to give notoriety to the regularity of the activity of authors and the validity of licenses already issued by the PDIC Brazil. Arguing defendant contests the preliminary part of illegitimacy passive, would be responsible for PDIC International and, in substance, alleges that the company actually author served many years in Brazil, but in April 2007, at an international meeting industry regulatory agency , a representative of the PADI International have taken note of irregularities of the activities of the authors and their relationship with the PDIC International, communicated to the defendants that only made known to the author of the events. Attaching, action between the same parties, with the same factual basis, in which the authors call for compensation in respect of property damage, lost and emerging as well as moral damages. Is the report, I decide. I reject the preliminary passive illegitimacy as expressly indicated in the company name first reverse its correspondence to a foreign company, as well as conduct because there expressly stated to the Brazilian company and the second defendant, its managing partner. Unnecessary to produce any other evidence, notably the issuance of letters rogatory, since both actions are sufficiently educated to international documents with certified translations as well because they met the defendants to obtain the documents they wanted national or international, there is no absolute need that the evidence was made by testimony, by contrast, could and should have been made by the retrieved document, translated and joined the case. After verifying the assumptions valid formation and development process, and the conditions for the legitimate exercise of the right of action, I will now analyze the merits. The documents attached on pages. 28/44 and 46/55, collated with the abundant production of documentary evidence in both case and, moreover, the express recognition of the defendant in self defense, the long years of work by the second author in the area, leave no doubt that the author was regular with the PDIC, upon issuance of e-mail from fl. 79, signed by second defendant and the e-mail from fl. 81, signed by John C. Fine. Defendants did not bring any proof that the signer of fl. 81 was actually a lawyer, represented the PDIC International PADI or, indeed, there is no proof that that person exists. Indeed, the e-mail from fl. 79 is in manifest grave act of irresponsibility and offensive to the honor and dignity of the second author and his company. There is no doubt that the acts of fl. 79/81, Brandileone committed by Claudius, the second defendant in the exercise of PADI direction of the company in Brazil, were no more than an intentional maneuver aimed at undermining the credibility of the authors in the market dive. As I have proven that the defendants committed a serious act of unfair competition, achieving purposely empty the clientele of the authors, defamation and practice, thus removing them from the market, as it did. It is unfortunate that a company the size of a defendant to adopt such unfair practices, and without any shame, as severely detrimental to the activity developed by a company, leading to its collapse, and forcing its managing partner to move away from the activity that has developed with both successful for so many years. The greater evil of the offense of defamation is that there is no remedy able to undo its effects entirely. Credibility and trust take years to be conquered, and in the case, it took two emails to be lost unfairly. There was the decision of anticipatory protection means to prevent the damage that the defendants deliberately wanted to lead authors. Barbosa says, Prayer in the work the young men that Justice delayed is not justice. In the case of authors, there is no way to do full justice, because there is no way, by court order, undo the damage caused to the defendants, however, is rather like trying to compensate for it. First step is to respond to the many public demonstrations proven especially on pages. 169/244 compensation action of the case to determine that the defendant proceeds to make public the true facts, namely that of Brazil PADI, its agent, CLAUDIO OSWALDO Brandileone SON deliberately committed an act of defamation against WERNECK Recreational Diving TOURISM AND LEISURE LTD, as well as against its managing partner directly affected, MARCUS DE AGUIAR WERNECK, disseminating false information that would not be regular both before the PDIC International information is untrue, without any credible factual support, with the only widespread and exclusive purpose of practicing unfair competition, undermine the credibility of those with its customers and thereby remove them from the market. Such disclosure should be made as required in item (ii) fl.14 for twelve consecutive months, provided that this company must be ordered to comply with the determination of this Judgement, for the account and several liability of the defendants, that the price publication medium adopted by this magazine. The publication will consist of full disclosure of this sentence. There is also the repair material, which, in fixed income amount calculated between the last balance sheet or income until proven before that date contained in the e-mail from fl. 79, multiplied by the number of months that passed before the first publication in this particular sentence. The material will be compensation paid to legal entities and allocated in society according to its status. There are obvious moral damages to be compensated. The moral damages is punitive teaching, but can not transmute itself into a source of unjust enrichment to the plaintiff. Difficult task of measuring the lesion to the right of personality, being sure how the first author was struck in his honor objective, ie, its reputation in the market, the second author was also reached in the innermost portion of the right personality , that is, it was unfair to tax personal suffering, improper removal of the activity and had chosen to perform successfully, these facts can not be overlooked. I understand how sufficient and reasonable, all things considered, moral damages in the amount of $ 100,000.00 for each of the authors, because the defendants jointly. I emphasize that the second defendant's liability is direct about the facts, not having acted in performance of the simple representation of the defendant. That said, upheld the claims made in both actions, resolution of the merits, according to art. 269, item I of the Code of Civil Procedure, to convict the defendants jointly to pay $ 100,000.00 to each of the authors, by way of moral damages, the defendants are ordered jointly and severally pay the plaintiff the amount of income calculated between the last balance sheet or income until proven before that date contained in the e-mail from fl. 79, multiplied by the number of months that passed before the first publication in this particular sentence, given the settlement of sentence, fiscal balance if clear and complete. The material will be compensation paid to legal entities and allocated in society according to its status. Condemns the defendants, jointly and severally, to assume responsibility for the full publication of this sentence (and not the minutes) as required in item (ii) fl.14 for twelve consecutive months, the Diving Magazine, provided that this review must be ordered to comply the determination of this Judgement, for the account and several liability of the defendants, that the average price publication adopted by this magazine. Failure to comply with this obligation within 10 days shall entail specific performance, with the publication determined by the court, with implementation of the assets of the defendants to pay it, and also additional fine of $ 100,000.00. I condemn the defendant to pay part of costs and attorney's fees, which fixed at ten percent of the value of the conviction. No appeal for suspension, be it Article 475-J of the Code of Civil Procedure. Res judicata, let down and file it is. Posted in audience. Enjoined those present. Register '. Nothing more, this was closed. I mat.01/31514, TJ-I typed. GUSTAVO QUINTANILHA Telles de Menezes Judge
