Because of difficult standard for a plaintiff to rove actual dilution and not just the likelihood of dilution, the U. S.
Supreme Court decided the case in favor of Victor and Cathy Mosey, the owners of Victor’s Little Secret. U. S. Congress passed the Trademark Dilution Revision Act in 2006, overturning the Supreme Court decision that sided with the much smaller Victor’s Little Secret. With the new statute revised and in place, it favors the plaintiff to where they no longer had to actual dilution.The revision stated that the plaintiff needed to show that the defendant’s trademark is likely to cause dilution of plaintiffs trademark. The main purpose of the new Statute was not simply to overturn the Supreme Court decision from 2003 that sided With a less powerful and less influential defendant, but instead to clarify the previous Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FETA) of 1995. (Chessman, 2013) Do you think that congress often uses its “veto power” over the U.
- Thesis Statement
- Structure and Outline
- Voice and Grammar
S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of a federal statute by enacting another statute to change the result of a Supreme Courts decision?The Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TARA) of 2006 was not congress intention to use veto power over the Supreme Court’s decision that favor the Moseys over Victorians Secret stores, even though it might be seen that way because of the minor in which it was enacted. Whenever statute that was put in place by congress, needs clarification, it is congress responsibility to go back to the drawing board and fix the confusion. Doing the process of rewriting a statute, you will have party that are looking to benefit from the outcome lobby members of congress to ensure the outcome favors them.
In the case of Victoria Secret v. Mosey, I am almost certain that the more Rich, Famous, and Powerful Empire of Victoria Secret, used their wealth and fame o lobby members of congress to have the final Statute, which is now known to us as the T DRAG to favor them. This is democracy at work; money gives you what you want. Do you think the Moseys were trading off of Victorians Secret famous name? Do you think that the Moseys had a legitimate claim to their business names because the husband’s name was Victor? Do believe the Moseys were trading off the name off the more famous and recognizable Victoria Secret.Smaller companies does this all the time because it makes it easier to reach market their product and it confuse costumer in hinging that their product have some form of relationship to the name brand product. In the Moseys case, they were lucky that the husband name was Victor.
They try to play the system knowingly. It just turned out that Victoria Secret was smarter and the Moseys were caught. Have seeing it first hand in South Korea how smaller companies try to confuse consumers in thinking their product is associated with a name brand product.Younger Service Members you just do not know how to distinguish between knockoff brands from the real, always fall prey to these smaller companies tricks. Did the change in the Trademark Dilution Revision Act off 2006 favor famous trademark holders? The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 provides that, “a dilution plaintiff does not need to show that it has suffered actual harm to prevail in its dilution lawsuit, but instead only show that there would be the likelihood of dilution” (Chessman, 2013, p. 174).With that being said, the TARA favors any company that have the money to bring a lawsuit and sustain the lawsuit to the end. References Chessman, H.
R. (2013). The legal environment of business and online commerce: Business ethics, e-commerce, regulatory, and international issues 7th De. ).
NJ: Prentice Hall. Briefing Paper 2: Law Case with Answers Professor Name Abstract Facts of the Case “United States vs..
Joy Williams” Joy Williams, who was an executive assistant to one of Coca-Cola Company high-level employee, conspired with two others to steal and sell trade secret to PepsiCo or the highest bidder for SSL . Million. The fraud was uncovered when one of the conspirators wrote a letter to Pepsi in an official Coca-Cola Company business envelope. The letter was hand over to Coke who turn it over to the FBI.
During their investigation, in addition to the letter, the FBI covered a videotape that showed Joy Williams stealing Coca-Cola Company’s confidential documents along with products samples and putting it in her bag. Williams, was convicted in February of 2007, went to trail and was later found guilty by a jury. She was sentence to eight years imprisonment. Williams appealed her conviction and the U.
S. Court of Appeals upheld her sentence in 2008. Did Williams act loyally in this case? Did PepsiCo do what it was supposed to do in this case? How likely is it that PepsiCo would have paid Williams and her co-conspirators the money they demanded? Williams had no loyalty to Coke in this case at all.
I believe the only person she was loyal to, was herself. She was obviously trusted by Coke, because she worked as an executive assistant to one of their top employee. By moving up this high in the corporate chain, she had access to confidential secrets that ordinary employee did not.In the end, she betray that trust because o greed. Meanwhile, PepsiCo did exactly what a reputable company would have done. This could have been a sting operation by Coke to setup and bring down PepsiCo. The SSP who turn over the letter to Coke was smart by doing so, and PepsiCo should be very thankful to him for doing.
Believe it was unlikely that PepsiCo would have succumbed to Williams and her conspirators demand by paying the money. The minor in which Williams and her conspirators when about trying to sell the secrets to PepsiCo was wrong, unprofessional, and raise the red flag was the get-go.Something just was not right was the start; it is very fishy to receive an anonymous letter offering to sell you your archival top-secret information in an envelope that belongs to that company. The fraud Williams was trying to commit is against all human ethics, wrong, and not thoroughly planned out, that is the reason she received the sentence she did.
Briefing Paper 3: Critical Legal Thinking Case Facts of the Case “Cliffhangers. Holder” Physical Examination This case involved Robert Challenges, a bus driver who worked for the Greyhound Corporation.Challenges was one of many defendants named in a lawsuit of negligence brought by seven passengers of a Greyhound bus who sustain injuring when the Greyhound bus he was driving collided with a tractor-trailer.
The allegation brought forward by the plaintiffs was that Greyhound Corporation knowingly allowed Challenges to Operate the bus while his eyes and vision were impaired. In order to prove their case, the alienists wanted the court to order Challenges to undergo some medical exams, which Challenges objected to do. (Challenges vs.
. Holder, 1964) Who wins? What was the decision of the highest appellate court?During the trail, Robert Challenges was order to undergo nine different forms of medical examinations by the District Court, siding with the plaintiffs; most having nothing to do with the initial petition of the plaintiffs. The judgment render by the District Court was vacated by the Court of Appeals. According to court document, “the order was corrected by the District Court o reduce the number of examinations to the four requested” (Challenges v. Holder, 1964, footnote 3). The Court also stated that they agree with Challenges it as an error and the entire issue had become moot.
(Challenges v.Holder, 1 964) Facts of the Case “Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Doodling” Strict Liability Leo Doodling, an employee of Sea and Ski plant, purchased a bottle of Squirt from the vending machine while on duty at his place of employment and drank from it. Doodling who became ill immediately of consuming the drink, discovered that the bottle contained a dead mouse, its’ hair, and feces.
Doodling later brought a lawsuit of strict liability forth against the bottling company. Does the doctrine of strict liability apply to this case? So, is there a defect on which to base a case for strict liability?What was the decision of the highest appellate court? Prior to Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Doodling, strict liability had never been use in the state of Nevada.
However, the doctrine still apply within the state, but Doodling still had to prove his case that the defect with the Squirt bottle that led to his illness existed prior to leaving the hands of the manufacturer and distributor. A toxicology witness who stated that the feces must have been in the bottle prior to being bottled supported Doodling allegation. In the end, the case was referred to a jury who decided in favor of Doodling and awarded him 52,500 in damages.Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company file an appeal the verdict and loss. (Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Doodling, 1966) Facts of the Case “Carter v. Indianapolis Power & Light Company and Indianapolis Company, Inc.
,” Negligence Two seventeen-year-old male, Adam C. Jacobs and David Messes befriend seventeen-year-old waitress, Sarah Mitchell while at a pizza shop. The young men returned to the shop by midnight, at the end of Mitchell shift, pick her you up, and they all went to Messes home. At 2:30 A. M.
, Jacobs suggested that the three jump a hill in Mitchell car.At an excessive rate of speed, Mitchell loss control of her Honda Accord while airborne, crashed into Indianapolis Power & and Light Company Inc. , power poles (after side-swapping a Bell Telephone utility pole), leaving Mitchell and Jacobs dead.
Both poles were about 25 feet from Edgewood Eve, the location of the accident. The plaintiff Susan Carter is the personal representative of Adam Jojoba’s estate; she sued Indiana Bell and Indianapolis Power Company. The lawsuit alleged that the companies were negligent because of the locations the poles were placed.
(Carter v. Indianapolis Power & Light Company Inc. ND Indiana Bell Telephone Company, 2005) Has Indiana Bell or Indianapolis Power breached its duty o care to Jacobs and proximately caused his death? What was the decision of the highest appellate court? In my opinion, Susan Carter was wrong in the first place for taking this issue to court.
It was clear the Jacobs had a pattern of engaging in risky behaviors, and it Was the matter of time that he met his faith. Both poles in questioned ad been at the same location for decade with only one prior incident. To allege that both poles, which are unmoving-objects, were responsible for the deaths of Mitchell and Jacobs is simply crazy.