My family has seen a fair share of challenges navigating the health care system. Our young son has asthma, and it’s taken years to find the right medications for him. Even when our allergist changed him to a biologic, it still took three months for us to receive approval, which meant he couldn’t join his classmates during recess and outdoor after-school activities.
According to ACT Research’s recently released edition of Charging Forward, a multi-client decarbonization study of the US commercial vehicle market, conversion of the CV sector will require a very coordinated effort between vehicle acquisition and the supporting charging infrastructure to ensure adequate charging infrastructure is in place to support fleet needs.
Typically, utilities have implemented programs to assist fleets in their infrastructure development, serving as project managers to assist the project from “pole to pad” or even “pole to plug” for participating fleets.
“Early adopters of battery-electric commercial vehicles experienced rather lengthy timelines to install EV charging infrastructure,” noted Ann Rundle, vice president of electrification and autonomy at ACT Research. “Utilities have now been able to support timelines of nine to 13 months, from initial preliminary design to final design and construction, but those lead times reflect adequate, existing transformer capabilities. A more conservative rule of thumb indicates fleets should begin planning and coordinating behind-the-fence EV charging infrastructure to allow for an 18- to 24-month lead time.”
In summary, Rundle emphasized that in cases where significant grid enhancements are necessary, longer lead times become essential, particularly when extra approval stages are involved. Upgrading feeders might extend beyond a year, while enhancing substations could span one to two years. The establishment of new substations could even extend to three years or more, given the comprehensive requirements of planning, load interconnection assessments, and intricacies in the permit approval procedure.
About 110,000 veterans sought Department of Veterans Affairs benefits for the first time in the first year of the PACT Act, and many more newly VA-eligible beneficiaries will likely do so under the new law, VA officials told Military.com.
The PACT Act created the opportunity for veterans with certain toxic-exposure-related health conditions and their survivors to receive health care and financial compensation by presuming that the conditions are service-connected if they served in a certain place and at a certain time. But many members of what the VA calls "the PACT Act planning population" of veterans may never have had any prior contact with the VA, said Steve Miska, PACT Act transitional executive director.
In the case of any uncertainty over the application process, veterans or their survivors may enlist the help of the VA itself, from the department's accredited representatives (including veterans service organizations), or from veterans offices run by state and local governments.
Beware of Fraud: PACT Act Claim Assistance Should Be Free
Citing a "drastic increase" in fraud and predatory practices targeting veterans, "especially around the PACT Act," the VA emphasizes that "you do not need to pay anybody to help" with filing a PACT Act claim, said Kaitlin Richards, assistant director in VA's Office of Policy and Oversight.
By law, organizations or individuals may not prepare, present or file claims on behalf of veterans without becoming accredited by the VA. Those accredited representatives may not charge a fee to help with filing initial claims -- emphasis on "initial." Expenses are allowed, however, which the VA defines only as "unusual expenses." "Initial" means the first time a given claim is filed; after the VA decides on a claim, an attorney may charge a fee to try to get the decision changed, for example.
VA In-Person and Virtual PACT Act Assistance
Veterans or survivors who need help filing a PACT Act claim can walk into a VA regional office to ask for help in person, Richards said. This assistance includes the likes of, for example, the Public Contact Team at the Denver Regional Office, which lets visitors schedule their own appointments with the VA's "VERA" (Visitor Engagement Reporting Application) appointment scheduler. A regional VA office may offer both in-person and virtual visits.
VA staffers at the VA Benefits Hotline (800-827-1000) and VA Health Benefits Hotline (877-222-8387) can also answer questions to help veterans "file that claim and answer those specific questions for them," Richards said.
VA Accredited Representatives and the PACT Act
Attorneys, claims agents and veterans service officers accredited by the VA to help with benefits claims and appeals must pass an test and a background check, and they must take continuing education courses to legally represent veterans before the VA.
Organizations with VA's stamp of approval, which you can search for here, can help with a range of benefits, including health care and financial compensation, and they can both help you gather evidence to support a PACT Act claim and file it on your behalf.
Veterans Service Organizations and the PACT Act
National veterans service organizations have taken part in the VA's PACT Act information sessions around the country in 2023, and Miska said the act itself even requires the VA to coordinate regularly with veterans groups.
National veterans service organizations such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars offer hands-on help with PACT Act benefits claims, as do nonprofits that specialize in helping the surviving family members of deceased veterans, such as the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) and Gold Star Wives of America.
The National Veterans Legal Services Program's free Burn Pits Claims Assistance Program prioritizes veterans whose past claims were denied -- first those with conditions not yet considered “presumptive” under the PACT Act, followed by those whose claim for a presumptive condition was denied after the creation of the act.
Especially if a veteran is being asked to pay money to file their initial claim, "tell them, 'Don't believe that person,'" Miska said. "Go to a VSO -- Veterans of Foreign Wars or the American Legion, whatever VSO they're comfortable affiliating with."
State and Local Government Veterans Services Offices
The veterans services officers within state and local governments can help with the federal benefit application, and getting to know those officials can have an added benefit, said Paul Frost, a Navy retiree and program director for the Military Officers Association of America, in a video about the PACT Act posted to the association's YouTube and Facebook pages.
In places where they exist, the state- or county-level offices are particularly tuned in to added benefits veterans may qualify to receive from their state, Frost said.
Veterans or survivors shouldn't be shy about filing a PACT Act claim, because "there are a lot of people willing to help veterans out there," Miska said.
-- Amanda Miller can be reached at amanda.miller@military.com.
Keep Up with the Ins and Outs of Military Life
For the latest military news and tips on military family benefits and more, subscribe to Military.com and have the information you need delivered directly to your inbox.
Story ContinuesAgainst a nationwide backdrop of book bans and censorship campaigns, Iowa educators are turning to ChatGPT to help decide which titles should be removed from their school library shelves in order to legally comply with exact Republican-backed state legislation, PopSci has learned.
According to an August 11 article in the Iowa state newspaper The Gazette, spotted by PEN America, the Mason City Community School District recently removed 19 books from its collection ahead of its quickly approaching 2023-24 academic year. The ban attempts to comply with a new law requiring Iowa school library catalogs to be both “age appropriate” and devoid of “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act.” Speaking with The Gazette last week, Mason City’s Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction Bridgette Exman argued it was “simply not feasible to read every book and filter for these new requirements.”
[Related: Radio host sues ChatGPT developer over allegedly libelous claims.]
“Frankly, we have more important things to do than spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to protect kids from books,” Exman tells PopSci via email. “At the same time, we do have a legal and ethical obligation to comply with the law. Our goal here really is a defensible process.”
According to The Gazette, the resulting strategy involved compiling a master list of commonly challenged books, then utilizing a previously unnamed “AI software” to supposedly provide textual analysis for each title. Flagged books were then removed from Mason City’s 7-12th grade school library collections and “stored in the Administrative Center” as educators “await further guidance or clarity.” Titles included Alice Walker’s The Color Purple, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, Toni Morrison’s Beloved, and Buzz Bissinger’s Friday Night Lights.
“We are confident this process will ensure the spirit of the law is enacted here in Mason City,” Exman said at the time. When asked to clarify what software Mason City administrators harnessed to help with their decisions on supposedly sexually explicit material, Exman revealed their AI tool of choice: “We used Chat GPT [sic] to help answer that question,” says Exman, who believes Senate File 496’s “age-appropriateness” stipulation is “pretty subjective… [but] the depictions or descriptions of sex acts filter is more objective.”
[Related: ChatGPT’s accuracy has gotten worse, study shows.]
According to Exman, she and fellow administrators first compiled a master list of commonly challenged books, then removed all those challenged for reasons other than sexual content. For those titles within Mason City’s library collections, administrators asked ChatGPT the specific language of Iowa’s new law, “Does [book] contain a description or depiction of a sex act?”
“If the answer was yes, the book will be removed from circulation and stored,” writes Exman.
OpenAI’s ChatGPT is arguably the most well-known and popular—as well as controversial—generative AI program currently available to the public. Leveraging vast quantities of data, the large language model (LLM) offers users extremely convincing written responses to inputs, but often with caveats regarding misinformation, accuracy, and sourcing. In exact months, researchers have theorized its consistency and quality appears to be degrading over time.
Upon asking ChatGPT, “Do any of the following books or book series contain explicit or sexual scenes?” OpenAI’s program offered PopSci a different content analysis than what Mason City administrators received. Of the 19 removed titles, ChatGPT told PopSci that only four contained “Explicit or Sexual Content.” Another six supposedly contain “Mature Themes but not Necessary Explicit Content.” The remaining nine were deemed to include “Primarily Mature Themes, Little to No Explicit Sexual Content.”
[Related: Big Tech’s latest AI doomsday warning might be more of the same hype.]
Regardless of whether or not any of the titles do or do not contain said content, ChatGPT’s varying responses highlight troubling deficiencies of accuracy, analysis, and consistency. A repeat inquiry regarding The Kite Runner, for example, gives contradictory answers. In one response, ChatGPT deems Khaled Hosseini’s novel to contain “little to no explicit sexual content.” Upon a separate follow-up, the LLM affirms the book “does contain a description of a sexual assault.”
Exman tells PopSci that, even with ChatGPT’s deficiencies, administrators believe the tool remains the simplest way to legally comply with new legislation. Gov. Kim Reynolds’ signed off on the new bill on May 26, 2023, giving just three months to comply.
“Realistically, we tried to figure out how to demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the law with minimal time and energy… When using ChatGPT, we used the specific language of the law: ‘Does [book] contain a description of a sex act?’ Being a former English teacher, I have personally read (and taught) many books that are commonly challenged, so I was also able to verify ChatGPT responses with my own knowledge of some of the texts. After compiling the list, we ran it by our teacher librarian, and there were no books on the final list of 19 that were surprising to her.
For now, educators like Exman are likely to continue receiving new curriculum restrictions from politicians hoping to advance their agendas. Despite the known concerns, the rush to adhere to these guidelines could result in continued utilization of AI shortcuts like ChatGPT.
Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | The Ministry of Gender and the NSSF are mobilizing labor inspectors to ensure that all employers contribute workers’ savings to the fund.
This is part of the efforts to ensure that all workers across the country comply with the exact amendments to the NSSF Act.
The NSSF Act amended in 2022 requires employers to remit employee contributions irrespective of the number of workers employed.
Before the law was amended, only employers with more than five employees were required to make contributions to NSSF.
The Ministry and the NSSF management have discovered that the labor inspectors at the districts will play a crucial role in monitoring and ensuring compliance with the law as amended.
On Wednesday, the Ministry and the NSSF kicked off training of Labor Inspectors from the central region to equip them with skills for the tasks ahead. Similar trainings have been lined up in other regions of the country.
The Minister of Gender, Labour, and social development Betty Amongi expressed hope that with Labor inspectors on board, the NSSF contributions will go beyond the current only 10%.
“The Act has opened the spectrum of social security where every worker can now save either through their employer or voluntarily. But how will NSSF know where they are, whether and how much they are being paid? Our Labour Inspectors have boots on the ground and will be the eyes and ears of these workers who have never been registered by NSSF”, she said.
Section 9 of the Employment Act 2006 provides for labor officers at all levels from the national to local government.
They are mandated with implementing and ensuring compliance with the Act. Section 11 of the employment mandates Labor Inspectors to inspect workplaces to examine and monitor workers’ conditions as required by the law.
Amongi said with a new partnership, employer compliance with the NSSF Act becomes a key area of emphasis for Labor Inspectors.
According to Amongi, the partnership will help NSSF to leverage the ministry’s labor inspection network, for its advantage, since it is not adequately present in every part of the country.
She adds that by doing this, the ministry and the fund are extending the government’s responsibility to ensure the very Uganda lives a decent life with or without a job, through NSSF’s social protection program.
“When Government undertook a retrenchment exercise, I commissioned a consultant to find out how those that were retrenched were coping. The study found out that within 5 years of those who were at the rank of Commissioner, 20% had passed away within just five years because they were not prepared for that loss of income. So, it is both the responsibility of the individual worker as well as the Government to ensure that all Ugandans have social protection,” she added.
The NSSF Acting Managing Director, Patrick Ayota said the partnership has come at the right time when the fund is ready to take on the challenge that emerged with the new changes in the law.
“We have a two-pronged strategy – first is to increase willingness to save by ensuring all eligible businesses understand and comply with the NSSF Act. This is the first objective of the partnership with the Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development, where the Labor Inspectors shall support the Fund to ensure employer compliance in their districts,” he said.
He adds that this strategy also looks at increasing the savings for every Ugandan who earns an income, and this is done through strategic partnerships and orderly innovative business models to make entrepreneurship, saving, and investing, a way of life for the most vulnerable people in the country.
Apart from training Labor Inspectors, the Ministry and NSSF plan to mobilize RDCs, and CAOs, at all levels, municipalities, Cities, and districts as part of the strategic stakeholders.
*****
URN
By Marielle Macher and Rhonda Mays
As has been widely reported over the last few months, the tenants at the over-200-unit Harrisburg affordable housing development, the Residences at Governor’s Square, are often living in deplorable conditions due to the owner, Uptown Partners, failing to maintain the property.
If you purchase a product or register for an account through one of the links on our site, we may receive compensation. By browsing this site, we may share your information with our social media partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Having faced so many challenges in getting care, I’m panic about price-setting initiatives in Congress because it could throw another wrench into a system that’s already complicated enough.
I believe price-setting policies may increase the barriers for Montanans to access treatment, and you should use your resources to investigate Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and their practices instead.
Congress and Federal Agencies have little oversight of PBMs, and I believe this enables them to pocket savings designed to lower our costs. Through co-pay accumulator schemes and various other crooked programs, these middlemen often leave families like mine to pay more than we should at the pharmacy.
People are also reading…
I’m glad to see some members of Congress have spoken out against PBM’s, but it’s time we turn words into action. By supporting the HELP Copays Act, you can put a stop to these dishonest practices and supply more assistance to people across our state.
Hawaii hurricane activity extends from June 1 to Nov. 30, and emergency supplies from the mainland are five days and 2,500 miles away.
It’s time to scrap the outdated 1920 Jones Act, which provides a monopoly to U.S.-flagged ships and crews and prevents foreign carriers from rushing relief supplies in times of extreme emergency, using every available cargo ship in the Pacific.
Our mute federal representatives blindly endorse the Jones Act instead of honoring and pledging their first allegiance to the people of Hawaii.
Since it will take many years to rebuild Maui, the clear choice, with a common sense of responsibility, would be to rely on any and all help and means available, from the nearby 15 foreign nations in the Pacific Rim.
Katarina Andersson
Ala Moana
EXPRESS YOURSELF
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser welcomes all opinions. Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor.
>> Write us: We welcome letters up to 150 words, and guest columns of 500-600 words. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and length. Include your name, address and daytime phone number.
>> Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Advertiser 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite #7-500 Honolulu, HI 96813
>> Contact: 529-4831 (phone), letters@staradvertiser.com, staradvertiser.com/editorial/submit-letter
Click here to view more Letters to the Editor. Or submit a letter below.
The CCI case (No. 05/2023) revolves around allegations filed by Mrs. Kanwaljeet Kaur Soni, the Informant, against Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Inc. (ACFE/OP-1), Netrika Consulting India Private Limited (NCIPL/OP-2), and The Open Thinking Academy (OTA/OP-3). The Informant alleges contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
The Informant, engaged in providing study resources and coaching for the Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) course, accuses ACFE/OP-1 of abuse of dominant position by imposing unfair conditions through its byelaws. She also claims that ACFE/OP-1’s actions restrict market access for preparatory services and influence CFE aspirants’ decisions.
ACFE/OP-1’s counteractions include issuing cease-and-desist notices to the Informant for alleged copyright and trademark infringements. This case underscores the intersection of intellectual property rights, competition regulations, and the dynamics of providing certification services in the global market.
The CCI’s analysis examines the interactions between the parties, communications, allegations of copyright infringement, and the Informant’s engagement in delivering preparatory courses for CFE certification. The CCI also reviews the Informant’s claims of ACFE/OP-1’s dominant position, allegations of restrictions on service supply, and the entry barriers posed by the appointment of Authorized Training Partners (ATPs).
Conclusion: The CCI concludes that no case of contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act is made out based on the provided evidence and allegations. The case sheds light on the complexities of balancing competition rules, intellectual property rights, and market dynamics within the realm of certification services. The ruling emphasizes that the Informant can explore other avenues for seeking redressal if she chooses, keeping the door open for further legal recourse in accordance with the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
1. The present Information has been filed by Mrs. Kanwaljeet Kaur Soni (hereinafter, the “Informant”) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the “Act”) against the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Inc., (hereinafter, ‘ACFE/ OP-1’), M/s Netrika Consulting India Private Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘NCIPL/ OP-2’), the Open Thinking Academy (hereinafter, ‘OTA/ OP-3’), (hereinafter OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 collectively referred to as ‘Opposite Parties’ / ‘OPs’) alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
2. It is stated that the Informant is engaged in service of providing study resources and coaching / training to potential candidates pursuing certification for a course, Certified Fraud Examiner (‘CFE’), conducted by ACFE/OP-1. It also offers consulting in the area of forensic accounting as well as fraud prevention.
3. It is stated that ACFE / OP-1, an association of persons, is a private, independent, organisation based in USA. The main objective of ACFE/OP-1 is reducing the incidence of fraud and white-collar crimes. ACFE/OP-1 conducts a certification course named Certified Fraud Examiners (‘CFE’) which can be earned by passing an examination. The qualifications required to be eligible for the CFE test are set by the ACFE/ OP-1 through its Board of Regents. Further, the CFE credentials so earned by a person are required to be renewed every year by paying a certain amount of fee to ACFE/OP-1. The CFE accreditation has gained recognition and acceptability all over the world as an accreditation in the prevention, detection, and deterrence of fraud.
4. It is stated that NCIPL/ OP-2 is a private consulting and investigating agency that provides services inter alia in the area of forensic investigation, background checks, due diligence, general data protection regulation (‘GDPR’) compliance, security and risk consulting and Training and Certification. In 2019, OP-1 appointed OP-2 as its Authorised Training Partner (‘ATP’) for providing training and assistance for CFE certification in India.
5. It is stated that OTA / OP-3 is ATP of OP-1 for four countries, namely, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Oman, and Malaysia, since 2015. OP-3 provides services for two courses, namely, the CFE course as authorised by the ACFE and the Certified Internal Auditor (CIA).
6. It is averred that OP-1, being the first mover had the opportunity to partner with some of the biggest organizations and government agencies in the area of fraud detection and prevention. Further, as there were no new entrants, OP-1 remains the only fraud detection and prevention certification provider in the world owing to multifarious factors such as ecosystems, anti-fraud training and education which have helped it to increase its reach all over the world.
7. It has been stated that with the increase in the number of aspirants for the CFE course, the Informant had started helping in the examination to the candidates aspiring to become a certified member of OP-1 in the examination preparation.
8. In around 2009, the OP-1 started providing study support in the form of the ‘CFE test Prep Course’ through virtual and in-person training and subsequently also started appointing ATPs to help those candidates / aspirants preparing for the CFE exam. In 2019, the OP-1 appointed OP-2 as its ATP for the first time in India. This resulted in the creation of an ecosystem to trap down CFE aspirants and influence their decisions.
9. It is stated that Informant was one of the first independent study support providers and in running preparatory courses for CFE certification in India after she cleared the CFE test in 2013. However, the Informant delivered the course material of OP-1 by explaining it more lucidly and at a price significantly less than that charged by OP-1.
10. It is further averred that there were communications between Informant and OP-1 in form of e-mail exchanges till 09.05.2019. OP-1, vide its e-mail dated 28.07.2014, had indicated to the Informant to become its ATP for India. However, in 2019, OP-1 communicated to the Informant that it is not possible to enter into a relationship of ATP with it as they have already signed an agreement with OP-2.
11. The Informant has delineated two relevant product markets, primary market and secondary market. ‘Expertise and credentials in fraud detection and prevention’ as primary relevant market and ‘preparation for clearing CFE exam’ as secondary relevant market. Informant has defined the Relevant Geographic Market as ‘whole world’.
12. The Informant has stated that OP-1 is the only entity which is providing CFE certification all over the world and there is no other entity that imparts an overall expertise in fraud detection and prevention. Further, OP-1 commands anywhere between 55% to 76% of the market share in the Relevant Markets.
13. The Informant has alleged that OP-1 is abusing its dominant position in the primary market by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions through Section 5.07: Suspension and Expulsion in its Byelaws (14th Amended Byelaws of OP-1 membership Inc.) ‘Section 5.07 Suspension and Expulsion. The Board of Regents, in its sole discretion, shall have the authority to expel, suspend, or discipline a Member for the following. C. Engaging in deceit in pursuit of becoming an ACFE Member, obtaining the CFE credentials, (including submitting the false test application information or receiving or providing improper assistance in relation to any person taking the CFE Exam), renewing ACFE membership (including the false reporting of Continuing Professional Education or failure to disclose character issues as required upon renewal), and any similar misconduct established by the disciplinary body of another professional organization to which the Member belongs.’ According to Informant, aforesaid Section 5.07 of the byelaws restricts the supply of preparatory services offered by third parties who are not ATPs of ACFE/OP-1, to aspirants preparing for CFE exams.
14. The Informant has stated that OP-1 has been alleging infringement of its copyrights and trademarks by Informant. According to Informant, OP-1 has issued various ‘cease and desist’ notices over trademark rights or protection that it didn’t possess, and has made the Informant to remove contents. The Informant has alleged that OP-2 threatened as well as defamed her by making false allegations of unauthorized use of the study material of OP- 1 and giving unauthorized coaching of the CFE course as she was not the ATP appointed by OP-1 in India.
15. It is also alleged that the OP-1 has appointed OTA/ OP-3 as its ATP for UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Qatar. OP-3 had also issued a legal notice to the Informant to stop delivering the online CFE coaching in UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar. The said notice of OP-3 also included allegations of copyright infringement and unauthorized use of the OP-1 material by the Informant.
16. The Informant thus has alleged that OP-1 is abusing its dominant position by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions through its byelaws which restricts the supply of services for preparing the CFE aspirants to clear the test and providing its own service at an exorbitant price and is trying to abuse its dominant position by restricting market access for the Informant and leveraging its dominant position in the primary market to protect its position in the secondary market and this amounts to a violation of Section 3(4), Section 4(2)(a), Section 4(2)(b), Section 4(2)(c) and Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.
17. In addition, it is stated that OP-1 has appointed only one ATP in each country to provide coaching for preparation of the CFE exam. The agreement between the OP-1 and ATPs has made it impossible for any other potential tutor or institute to provide similar services leading to entry barriers and foreclosure of competition causing Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC) under Section 3(4) of the Act.
18. Based on the above submissions, the Informant has requested the Commission for the following relief(s):
a. direct the Director General to cause an investigation into the matter under Section 26(1) of the Act;
b. pass an interim order directing the OP-1 to re-instate the membership of Informant and to remove her name from the list of expelled members in the Fraud Magazine, published by the OP-1,
c. pass an interim order under Section 33 of the Act, directing OP-1 to immediately restore the credentials of CFE to the Informant and till the completion of the investigation, stop coercing the Informant not to participate in the secondary market and
d. pass any other order as the Commission deems fit.
19. The Commission has perused the Information and material available on record. The Commission observed that gravamen of Informant’s allegations relates to violation of the provisions of Section 3 as well as Section 4 of the Act and arises from the restriction on the supply of preparatory services for CFE examination offered by Informant.
20. The Commission is of the view that, for examination of the allegations relating to Section 4 of the Act, it may be axiomatic to define a relevant market(s) and assess the dominance of the entity alleged to be abusing its dominant position in such market(s). However, considering the facts, circumstances and allegations levelled in the case, the Commission does not find it necessary to define relevant market and establish dominance in the instant matter.
21. In this regard, the Commission noted that as per Information, ACFE/OP-1 has been issuing notices to the Informant for using its study material for CFE examination in an unauthorised manner by infringing copyrights and trademarks of ACFE/OP-1. Similarly, notices were also issued by the OP-2 and OP-3 for providing coaching services in the countries for which they are the ATPs. The Commission noted that ACFE/ OP-1 through its email dated 07.10.2015 had contacted the Informant and communicated the cease-and-desist notice with attached images of infringement, and had also stated that “one can create material for CFE test but without infringing the copyright or trademark of ACFE/ OP-1”. In this regard, the Commission noted from the Information and documents filed therewith that in its communication dated 07.10.2015 with the Informant, ACFE/OP-1 further stated that, “Our position is not that no one else can create study materials for the exam, but rather that they may not infringe on our copyright or trademarks while doing so”. The Informant in her response through email dated 08.10.2015, had agreed to remove the contents to which ACFE/ OP-1 had an objection. The same was removed by the Informant in pursuance of cease-and-desist notice. The Commission also noted that ACFE/OP-1 through its e-mail dated 13.10.2016 again communicated to the Informant to cease-and-desist infringement of its copyright/trademarks.
22. With respect to the Informant’s allegation that ACFE/OP-1 in its email dated 17.03.2022 had asked the Informant to stop teaching any course for preparation for clearing the CFE examination. The Commission noted that in the aforesaid communication, OP-1 brought to the notice of Informant that “it continues to commit trademark infringement by using ACFE’s logo and identical terminology of the CFE test Prep Course which are registered trademarks of ACFE…ACFE’s legal counsel has had over dozen communication with you since 2015 related to misuse of ACFE’s intellectual property. The repeated and flagrant violations of ACFEs intellectual property rights leaves us to conclude that KAPP Edge (Informant’s firm) is unwilling or unable to offer a lawful CFE test training course”.
23. The Commission noted that OP-1 had approached the Informant to become its ATP for India around 2014, and communication in this regard continued until 2016. Pertinently, in an email dated 20.08.2014, ACFE/OP-1 communicated to the Informant that, ‘we are not ready to move forward in India and I believe we are seeking a partner with a larger footprint’. Furthermore, in 2019, in the course of communications between OP-1 and the Informant, however, it was conveyed that OP-1 had appointed another entity e. OP-2 as its ATP. In this regard, in an email dated 08.05.2019, ACFE/OP-1 communicated to Informant that, ‘Our legal counsel also advised me that over several years, KAPP edge (Informant’s firm)has repeatedly misused ACFE copyrights and trademarks and engaged in misleading advertising, which ACFE sent cease and desist letters regarding. This includes trademark, misuse of the ACFE Seal as recently as December 2018, despite being previously warned not to use trademarks. These repeated instances are concerning to us when considering someone who wishes to be an ACFE partner’.
24. In view of the above, the Commission is of the view that it is unnecessary to dwell any further on the issues stated in the Information, by examining the matter on merits, and accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion that no case of contravention of the provisions of the Act is made out and the Information filed against OPs is directed to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant of relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the prayer for the same is also rejected.
25. It is however, made clear that nothing stated in the present order shall preclude the Informant to approach appropriate forum and from taking / availing any other remedy(s) available to her in accordance with law.
26. Needless to state, in the event the Informant moves appropriate forum for seeking redressal, the cause of the Informant would be determined in accordance with the law and nothing stated herein, shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
27. The Secretary is directed to communicate to the Informant, accordingly.
