Download file to see previous pages
ision in the Court of Appeals and stated “commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors” (LII p.4). However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Appeals Court had error in its judgment. Therefore, case the case went from district court, to Appeals court and eventually to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reasoned that the decision ought to be reached upon consideration of several factors. One, the character and even the purpose of that use; two, the amount of the work used in the creation of a parody. Finally, the effects and the nature of the copyrighted material.
This case was filed at the district court in Texas involving two firms where mascot characters were the center of the issue. Barney was a character associated with the Lyons partnership while Ted Giannoulas had a chicken as its mascot. The plaintiff complained that the defendant had false association trademark-dilution as well as unfair competition (Texas paralegal Journal p.2).
In the first hearing, the district judge rule that the plaintiff was not able to proof beyond reasonable doubts how the defendant had infringed on trademark. The plaintiff’s concern was that the defendant’s portrayal of Barney as weak and relied on the chicken for dancing lessons was tantamount to unfair competition. When the judgment was delivered, the plaintiff was dissatisfied and appealed the ruling (Texas paralegal Journal p.4).
The issues raised by the plaintiff at the district court included by using a Barney-like mascot, there would be consumer confusion hence unfair competition. Additionally, the firm complained of portraying it in bad light by misusing a barney-like mascot on the stage. Apparently, the mascot would be slapped, kicked and even stood on.
The district court ruled that there was no evidence sufficient to sustain a consumer-confusion case. This was reached after it was ruled that the defendant’s use of barney-like mascot was a parody. In
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
v Wise, 221 F.3d 140 (5th Cir.200), 2000). Abstract Crimes against the public may have various manifestations. There are some acts that some members of the public get involved in which qualify to be crimes. Sometimes this happens without their knowledge as they bid to have their grievances addressed.
They were joined by another man, Kartz, who left the two abruptly. Mc Fadden became suspicious and decided to follow them. The two men linked up with Kartz at a different store (Zucker’s). Mr Mc Fadden approached them, identified himself and subsequently enquired about their names.
Among those cases, the topics covered are as follows: Business Law, Real Property Law, Intellectual Property Law, Business and the Bill of Rights, Administrative Agency Law, Tort Law Relating to Business, and Contract Law.
For the completion of the requirements of this course, the following cases were chosen for their relevance in the topic at hand, and were studied and briefed in the order of the topics abovementioned: Volvo Trucks North America, Inc.
Mr. Taitts is said to be suffering physical disability and it is inopportune that upon their return to their seats which was down the roe from Ms. Gilson, Mr. Taitts lost his balance and thereafter fell into Ms. Gilson, who in turn fell down the stairs and as a result, she obtained injuries on her body.
Case 1: Wollery Delgado, plaintiff and appellant v. Trax Bar& grill defendant and appellant. History: The trial court had awarded compensations to the plaintiff for the physical injuries that were sustained from an attack by a mob on the premises of the defendant. The appeal court reversed this ruling.
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Save Your Time for More Important Things
Let us write or edit the essay on your topic
with a personal 20% discount.