Walt Disney Co. V. Beijing Publishing Press - Essay Example

?Walt Disney Co. V. Beijing Publishing Press This case involves an infringement of intellectual property rights. Intellectual property involves creations of the mind, artistic work, symbols, names, or images used in commerce. Intellectual property has two divisions in that it includes industrial property such as trademarks and industrial designs. In addition, it includes copyrights that comprise literary work such as novels, poems, films, and performances. Intellectual property rights (IPR) as any other right gives the owners of intangible assets like patents, trademarks, and copyrights the freedom to enjoy from their own creations. IPR is protected by Article 27 of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. In the first part it is stated that the Article gives innovative persons the right to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to share in scientific advancement. The second part states, “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author” (United Nations). In the case Walt Disney Co. v. Beijing Publishing Press, Beijing Publishing Press published and distributed a series of books called Disney Moral Tales. Beijing Publishing press did not contract for copyright to publish from Disney but relied on an agreement between Maxworld China publishing company, which is a joint venture between Children press and Maxwell. Although Beijing Publishing Press had entered into contract with and paid Maxwell which has intellectual property rights from Disney, it violated Disney IPR. The contract details form Disney did not give Maxwell the right to subcontract its intellectual properties to third parties, which means that the contract between Maxwell and Beijing was void. The fact that the contract was illegal makes it void. Disney enjoys copyright protection of its products from the Chinese law. Therefore, any third parties who wish to utilize its intellectual properties must enter into a contract with Disney. In this case, there existed no contract between Disney and Beijing Publishing. Before paying IPR, a party should conduct careful due diligence to assure that it is paying for enforceable IPR. This case illustrates concept in that Beijing Publishing Company had an obligation to carry out proper investigations to ascertain the legality of the contract with Maxwell Company and Children Press. The department of state copyright administration requires companies to conduct an inquiry and implement registration procedures with the relevant authorities before actual use of IPR. Although Beijing Publishing Company had exempted itself in the working agreement with the Children press, where it stated that Children press would bear any responsibilities arising because of non-registration with the copyright authority; it failed to ascertain that Children Press is not an independent legal person and thus had to bear the responsibility. Beijing Company has a lawsuit against Maxwell. The contract between Disney and Maxwell stated, “Disney Company licenses to Maxwell Company exclusive rights to publish and sell within China its publications based on Disney world characters.” The contract expressly states that the license given should not be granted to third parties (Shaffer, Agusti, and Earle 574). Beijing Publishing can sue Maxwell on the ground that it breached the initial contract, which led to it incurring damages. Champagne V. Wines Worth Group Ltd This case involves an Australian company by name Wines Worth Group against French Department of Champagne that sought an injunction to prevent Australians from “passing off” their wine as produced from France. French Department of Champagne filed on the basis that they own the trademark. A trademark is a distinctive sign used by businesses to speak a message to their consumers to specify the origin of the product and henceforth dictate the target markets. It is a name, word, phrase, logo, or symbol and the owners of the trademark can initiate legal proceedings for trademark infringement. In this case, CICV has a claim that Champagne uniqueness from France comes with the soil and the climate grapes grow in and the method of manufacture. These two aspects lack in the Australian wine intended for the French market. Therefore, this depicts an infringement of the champagne trademark selling in France. The approach in this case is subjective in that the jury looks at the secretive aspects of having a new wine in the France markets and the unexpressed subjective intent. What this suggests for trademark laws is that it is possible to pursue an action against unregistered trademarks used informally to refer to any distinguishing attribute by which the product is uniquely identified. Trademarks also hinder the efforts of unfair competitors or counterfeiters who use similar distinctive labels to market inferior products. The court reached this decision by using a survey conducted by experts from both parties. In relation to the subject in question, I suggest that the surveys were subjective and in favour of the Champagne Group. For instance, a market research studies supporting the contention found out that champagne is not generic word by usage in New Zealand. Further, the underlying market conditions require any company wishing to export wine to France to do so under distinctive terms of champagne and sparkling wines. It is the work of the prosecutor to determine validity of an evidence presented in court or not. According to Crown Prosecution Service, the prosecutor has a task to weigh the explanation given by the suspect, determine its credibility in light of the evidence as a whole, and evaluate if it supports an innocent explanation (CPS). In the cases where a survey has to be carried out, the prosecutor has a task to determine the accuracy, reliability, and credibility of the work. Coca Cola Company employs persons form worldwide to make sure that if a person asks for a coke the same is given or the party advised that it is unavailable. In short, the company does this to reduce the risks associated with counterfeits. Geographical indication used to show that goods have a certain origin and that they possess the reputation because of that origin. Coca Cola is one such product that makes people all over the world proud of its unique production. There are laws that protect the products’ trademarks and businesspersons would rather sell no coke at all than manufacture counterfeit coke that can lead them to jail. Counterfeit products can lead to court injunctions, fines, and imprisonment on the side of the sellers. Works Cited CPS. The Full Code test. 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. Schaffer, Richard, Filiberto Agusti, and Beverley Earle. International Business Law and Its Environment. USA: Cengage learning, 2008. Print. United nations. The Universal declaration of human rights. 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. Read More