Laws on Property Critical Analysis - Essay Example

 Property is a very vast term that encompasses all things which may or may not be appropriated by man. This has many classifications which include real or immovable property and personal or movable property, intellectual property, etc. The ownership and other rights over them are governed by different laws on property. One case I briefed on real property showed the controversy in the use of the government’s power of eminent domain. Kelo vs. City of New London (2005) was a case where the owners of real property filed suit against New London for expropriating their land in alleged violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees expropriations shall be made only for public use and upon just compensation. The Supreme Court in a divided decision held that the City’s purpose of expropriation, which is to give the property to a private entity for development, falls under the term, for “public use.” The Court held that the City as a whole would benefit because the development would bring much needed capital, investments and work to the City of New London which is in dire need of economic uplift. Thus, despite the fact that the City would expropriate the property and give it to a private entity, it would still be for “public use” Real property is protected by the registration through the Torrens System of Land Registration, which is popularly used all over the world. This system was invented by Australian Sir Robert Richard Torrens, as a means of simplifying how we transfer ownership of real property. As an owner of land, I would have it registered and have to follow the requirements set by law, and upon registration, I am issued a Torrens Title, which is my evidence or proof of ownership of the land. The great characteristics of the system is that upon registration, the Title binds and protects my ownership of the land forever to the whole world, unless I decide to transfer it or sell it, which should be registered as well. In contrast to real property, intellectual property can only be protected for a specific period of time. This is because, as stated by Wayne in 2006: The essential idea […] is simple: Artists and creators should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor for a specified time period, after which the material becomes available for public use. Society benefits because this incentive to create will yield a rich and varied cultural menu for its citizens. (On-line) Therefore, it is clear that laws are created to protect an individual’s intellectual property, and gives him ample time to benefit from his creations, and upon the expiration of the time given, the protection is lifted, and the public may benefit. Another case I briefed is on the topic of protection of intellectual property, entitled Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. vs. Samara Brothers Inc., (2000). In this case, the defendant Samara Brothers, Inc. is a company that designs and manufactures children’s clothes. Samara filed a case against Wal-Mart Stores because it found out that Wal-Mart Stores had entered into a contract with Judy-Philippine, Inc. to manufacture children’s outfits based on pictures of clothes made by Samara and would be sold under a Wal-Mart label, "Small Steps." The case was on the charge of infringement of unregistered trade dress on the legal basis of section 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946. Upon reaching the Supreme Court on Certiorari, the Court held that the designs of Samara did not constitute the legal definition of an unregistered trade dress that would warrant protection under the law. This reasoning came about due to the fact that the product’s designs are not distinctive enough to constitute protection under Section 43(a). Just because a product’s design almost always identifies the product to the manufacturer, Samara’s designs do not make them so distinctive as to cause confusion on the consumers. The Court further held that, “consumers should not be deprived of the benefits of competition with regard to the utilitarian and esthetic purposes that product design ordinarily serves by a rule of law that facilitates plausible threats of suit against new entrants based upon alleged inherent distinctiveness…" Section 43(a) gives a cause of action to the manufacturer or producer should any person use “any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof . . . which … is likely to cause confusion . . . as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods. …” The law and Constitution protect works and other intellectual property created by individuals. One of them is a copyright which protects original works of authorship such as literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. Examples of works that can be protected under copyright are poems, novels, songs, movies, software, among others. A patent is the means of protecting inventions or discoveries that an individual has made which can be beneficial to the general public. A trademark is the means of protecting certain words, phrases, symbols, or designs which identify the source of the goods or services of one person or entity from another. (“Copyright in General,” 2006) It is noteworthy to state that a copyright does not protect an abstract idea; it protects only the concrete form of expression in a work. To be valid, a copyrighted work must have originality and possess a modicum of creativity. (“Focus On,” 2006) For example, let’s say that Nike invented a shoe that can add 6 inches more height in your jump. It markets the products and airs commercials, including one that has a theme song or tagline for the advertisement. That theme song or tagline can be copyrighted since it is an original authored work. The design of the shoe itself can be patented. And the Nike “swoosh” symbol is for sure to have been registered as a trademark, since once you see it you can identify it as a Nike product. It is a basic legal concept that one may do whatever he wants with his property, as long as he does not do so to harm others. Thus, theoretically, as owner of real property I can do whatever I wish, even to destroy the property or burn down the house, although extremes. However, in this day and age where we live in cities and suburbs with homes next to each other in communities, that in itself becomes a restraint on those rights of ownership I mentioned. I can’t intentionally burn down my house because it could spread and harm those of my neighbors. I can’t turn my house and lot into a garbage dump because that would greatly affect the health and odor situation of the community, and would unjustly bring down the property value of the area, as well as violate many zoning laws. Thus, ownership clearly brings with it all incidental rights, but even those rights are restricted or limited under certain circumstances. By simple definition, an easement is the right to use of a person over the real property belonging to another person, most often for a specific or special purpose. Examples of easements are easements of right of way and light and view, among others. Easements may be created in a number of ways. For example, an easement of right of way can be created if I use another person’s property to pass through to the road or highway regularly and without his consent, I can establish a prescriptive easement of right of way. Other ways include a simple agreement between the parties, or a notarized prohibition, or judicial declaration of the need for an easement in the situation. Easements may be registered under the Torrens system, which would protect them and bind them just as the land is bound and protected as well. Easements are necessary to provide adequate and equitable benefits to owners of real property, as well as in some cases, the community or public at large. For example, if my land is bordered on all sides by real property and there is not easy access to the road or public highway, I may be granted an easement by the owner of the property which is closest to the road to allow myself and whomever I allow to come to my property, access through that easement of right of way. Of course, I should compensate the other owner for the loss of property due to the easement. Works Cited: Kelo vs. City of New London, 268 Conn. 1. 843 A. 2d 500. (2005). U.S. Copyright Office. (February 13, 2006). Copyright in General (FAQ).  Retrieved April 26, 2006, from http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html USINFO. (January 2006). Focus On: Intellectual Property Rights. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/intelprp/glossary.htm Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. vs. Samara Brothers, Inc., (99-150) 529 U.S. 205. 165 F.3d 120. (2000) Wayne, E. Anthony. (January 2006). Why Protecting Intellectual Property Rights Matters. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/intelprp/protecting.htm Appendix C Briefing Cases ( Real Properties Case) Facts The name of the case is Kelo vs. City of New London. The defendant New London is a city in Connecticut what had been suffering from severe economic problems and high unemployment rates for the past few years. Through its approved development plan, New London used its power of eminent domain and seized private property in order to sell to private developers. Among those properties seized were those of the petitioners Susette Kelo and Wilhelmina Dery, et al. The city claimed that by developing the land, it would create jobs and increase tax revenues, which would eventually uplift the local economy. Kelo and the other owners of seized property filed suit against the City of New London in the New London Superior Court, alleging that by taking their properties, the City violated the Constitutional “public use” restriction in the Fifth Amendment. This clause guaranteed that the government would not take any private property for public use without just compensation. On that basis, the Kelo and the other property owners contend that the taking of their private property for the City to sell to private developers did not constitute public use. The Superior Court granted a permanent restraining order which prohibited the City from taking some of the properties, but not the other properties. From this decision, both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, which reversed the ruling of the Superior Court, and held that all of the seizures of property were valid, and that the taking property for development satisfied the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment. Thus, the petitioners Kelo, et al. brought the case to the Supreme Court on certiorari. Issue The issue of this case is whether or not the City of New London would violate the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause by taking private property to sell for private development, for the purpose of helping the local economy. Ruling The judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut is affirmed. Analysis New London, by taking the property would not violate the Fifth Amendment because the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" under the definition and meaning of the takings clause. New London was following an economic development plan in taking the land, which would eventually benefit the City as a whole and not only a select group of individuals. In this case, the taking of the real properties qualified as "public use" even though the land was not going to be used by the public but would be developed for a private purpose. The Court held that in interpreting the Fifth Amendment, the phrase “public use” does not mean it in the literal sense, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.' Minority Rationale(s) This case was dividedly decided by the Supreme Court, with Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Chief Justice Rehnquist joining the dissenting opinion of Justice O’Connor. Justice Kennedy concurred in a separate opinion: 1. The Concurring Opinion of Justice Kennedy shows his agreement with the majority rule, and restated that in taking private property in this case, the context of the taking was through a comprehensive development plan that was meant to address an alarming economic depression in the City of New London. Thus, the taking falls under the interpretation of “public use” and did not violate the Fifth Amendment. 2. Justice O’Connor, in her Dissenting Opinion elaborated on the damaging effects the ruling in this case can have on the long standing Constitutional limitation on the power of government. The incidental public benefits that can be derived from the taking and development of the private property eliminated the distinction between the classification of public use and private use. She further stated that through this ruling, all private property can now be taken and transferred to a private individual as long as there would be incidental benefits to the public in the process. 3. In the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Thomas, he stated that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the terms “public use” and public necessity to be interchangeable. The ruling in this case, by allowing economic development to fall within the term public use, erased the Public Use Clause from the Constitution. Comments The Constitution is the highest law of the land, the Supreme Law. Compared to it, other laws and statutes are checked to see their legality and constitutionality. It is a sacred and time-honored law that outlines the powers and structures of government, and the rights of every human in the US. That is why cases involving constitutional issues, especially those resolving the rights of individuals should be very strictly adjudged. This case, although indeed for the benefit of the New London to uplift its local economy, has its legal repercussions in creating case law that affects all subsequent cases of a similar nature. I would have to agree with the minority in their dissent, although the taking is indeed for the welfare of the City and its constituents, the legal and Constitutional effects of a ruling that allows taking private property to be given to private individuals undermined the time honored and stable doctrines of past cases. Follow-Up Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Follow up questions should be answered in the 1250 word essay. Appendix C Briefing Cases ( Intellectual Properties Case) Facts The title of the case is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. vs. Samara Brothers Inc. Defendant Samara Brothers, Inc. is a company that designs and manufactures children’s clothes. In 1995, Wal-Mart Stores entered into a contract with Judy-Philippine, Inc. to manufacture children’s outfits based on pictures of clothes made by Samara and would be sold under a Wal-Mart label, "Small Steps." For that purpose, Wal-Mart sent pictures of sixteen Samara children’s clothes, which Judy-Philippine manufactured the clothes, and made some small modifications. In 1996, Samara Brothers received a call from a JC Penney buyer who said that she saw Samara clothes being sold in Wal-Mart at a cheaper price. This prompted Samara to investigate and found also other retail store chains selling the same clothes manufactured by Judy-Philippine. Thus, Samara filed a suit at the US District Court of New York for infringement of unregistered trade dress on the legal basis of section 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946. The jury found in favor of Samara and awarded more than $1 million in damages. Wal-Mart made a motion for judgment as a matter of law, alleging insufficient evidence in supporting a ruling that Samara's clothing designs could be legally protected under section 43(a) as distinctive trade dress. This motion was denied. Wal-mart then appealed the case to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the District Court’s denial of the motion and held that "copyrights depicting familiar objects, such as the hearts, daisies, and strawberries in Samara's copyrights are entitled to very narrow protection. It is only the virtually identical copying...which will result in a successful claim of infringement of familiar objects." Wal-Mart then brought the case to the Supreme Court for certiorari. Issue The issue presented in this case is whether or not Samara’s product designs are distinctive and thus should be protected under the Trademark Act of 1946, Sec. 43(a) Ruling We hold that, in an action for infringement of unregistered trade dress under §43(a) of the Lanham Act, a product’s design is distinctive, and therefore protectible, only upon a showing of secondary meaning. The judgment of the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Analysis No, Samara’s designs are not distinctive and warrant protection under the abovementioned law. The Supreme Court held that in an action for infringement of unregistered trade dress, a product's design is distinctive, and therefore protectible, only upon a showing of secondary meaning. The basis used by Samara is Section 43(a), which gives a cause of action to the manufacturer or producer should any person use “any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof . . . which … is likely to cause confusion . . . as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods. …” The design of Samara’s clothes do not fall under the provisions of Section 43(a). Just because a product’s design almost always identifies the product to the manufacturer, Samara’s designs do not make them so distinctive as to cause confusion on the consumers. The Court further held that, “consumers should not be deprived of the benefits of competition with regard to the utilitarian and esthetic purposes that product design ordinarily serves by a rule of law that facilitates plausible threats of suit against new entrants based upon alleged inherent distinctiveness," Minority Rationale(s) None. It was a unanimous decision. Comments The case here presents a good examination of what kinds of intellectual property can and can’t be protected under the law. It seems that the law on intellectual property, especially in cases such as this, involve a very meticulous and detailed inspection as to whether the assailed product is so similar in such a way that it tends to cause confusion on the part of the consumers as to the nature of the product. Follow-Up Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Follow up questions should be answered in the 1250 word essay. Read More