CS stole resume templates from a small business owner

Credit Suisse’s HR staff was in urgent need of CV templates for redundant bankers.

They quickly found what they were looking for online. Wow, there’s some great material there.

This came from a small business owner. It has been developing and marketing it over the past few years.

In August, she learned that CS had “provided its employees with resume templates due to a high wave of layoffs,” she wrote. On her LinkedIn.

It was “one of my paid templates from my WOW template collection”, “with precise instructions, lots of bonus material and licensed images that CS nota bene has no rights to”.

Initially, when asked questions, the bank officials denied everything. The templates were said to be “developed by us.”

However, this is not true. According to the SMB employee, her name will be “in the template metadata.”

So she hired a lawyer who wrote a letter to CS. And suddenly everything seemed different.

“It is true that your client’s CV template has been used as part of CS’s internal CV workshops and has been made available to participants in these additional training courses,” the bank’s responsible people have now answered.

They then said that the template “can in no way be considered a copyrighted work.”

“For this reason, we do not consider the request for an additional license to be appropriate. “Credit Suisse is not prepared to pay the license fee.”

The small business owner indicates that she will lose 59 thousand francs. euro.

What is striking is what CS does in the end.

“However, we can assure you – without acknowledging any legal obligation – that we will no longer use this CV template for your client in the future.”

He was arrested, ashamed, remorseful – but the compensation was zero francs. Not a single word of remorse either.

CS, on the high horse. In small and big ways.

He works in Singapore About 800 million dollarsThis is what the former president of Georgia asks of the bank. The excluded client wants UBS, CS’s successor, to deposit the money with the court.

The bank’s lawyers were cautious. They said this was unusual. One prefers to make a “Payment into Escrow”.

CS neu UBS’s lead lawyer said the court was “not in a position to deal with this amount of money”. Unsurprisingly, this did not sit well with the Singapore judge.

The arbitrator answered clearly: “I am not aware of any evidence in this regard and it is not a suggestion that needs to be dealt with further other than to say if there are concerns the court will raise them with the parties.”

It ordered the bank to pay the full amount “within 21 days of November 2, 2023” plus interest of 5.33 percent – which must also be remitted at the end of each month.