Overview of Andrew C. Brown v. Robert G. Woolf - Assignment Example

Case briefs Case 1. : Luther R. CAMPBELL -Petitioners, v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC. Facts: Sometimes in 1993, four singers whose stage names were Fresh Kid, Luke, Brother Marquis and Mr. Mixx sought permission from Accuff Music to use Roy Orbison’s tune. However, the group’s request was rejected but went ahead to use the tune; what followed was a court case in 1994 (Legal Information Institute, p.1). Procedural history: The case started at the district court where the plaintiff was granted the go-ahead with the case. After several months of court sessions, the district court gave the defendants a friendly judgment. Immediately, the plaintiff appealed the decision 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. Issues: Even though the plaintiff seemed justified in complaining about infringement, the real issue in this case was the commercial use of somebody else’s work. Decision: It was unanimously decided that commercial use was to be determined by the extent at how new something has been created. Reasoning: 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. Case 2: Lyons Partnership, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. Ted Giannoulas Facts: 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). Procedural history: 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). . Issues: 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. Decision: 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 addition to dismissing the case, the court further awarded attorney’s fees to the defendant. As a result, the plaintiff appealed to have both decisions overturned at the Appeals Court. Reason: Even though Lyon fiercely contested the decision by the district court, the rule at the Apeals court was no different. The judges reasoned that the use of the Barney-like mascot as purely parody and termed Lyons argument as meritless. Case 3 Andrew C. Brown V. Robert G. Woolf. Facts Andrew brown was a professional athlete who had sought the services of one Robert Woolf who happened to be both a sports agent and an attorney. The plaintiff sought punitive damages, compensatory as well as an imposition of a particular trustee fee. Apparently, the defendant had received money on behalf of the athlete but justified it to be his for the services offered. Procedural history: In 1983, a district court in Indiana was the first place the parties took the case where it was argued for some time. The defendant produced copies showing the agreement signed by the plaintiff regarding the sharing of money from the sport. On the other hand, the plaintiff belatedly fought the evidence stating the defendant was not being genuine (Westlaw p.3). Issue: Fiduciary was the main issue in this case with the plaintiff complaining that the agent failed to diligently investigate the financial status of Racers. Additionally, the agent did receive money from the club without sending it to the player. Decision: Finally, the district judge denied the defendant’s evidence but also denied plaintiff’s request of compensation. This is because there lacked evidence to prove that both parties had agreed on how the agent was to negotiate with other clubs Reasoning: The court reasoned that there were credibility issues on the part of the agent. Similarly, there was no sufficient proof for a trial concerning misrepresentation. The athlete did not have any existing contract to show the modalities of working with the agent. As a result, the agent could not be proved to have engaged in fraud (Westlaw p.4). Case 4. John W. Carson V. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc Facts : John Carson sought a review of a decision by a district court where the defendant, Johnnys’ portable Inc. The appellant had sued the corporation for unfair competition, publicity and invasion regarding right to privacy. Procedural history: In 1982, the case was filed at the District court in Michigan where John Carson complained of three issues against Johnny’s Inc. One of the issues was the use of a particular phrase associated with the plaintiff’s company. In the court, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff sought to appeal at the Appeals court. Issues: The plaintiff complained that the phrasal use by the defendant would cause confusion to its clientele; give the defendant’s company an unfair advantage and it would be an invasion of privacy. Apparently, Carson hosted a TV show where the phrase “Here’s Johnny” was popularly used in the introductory part. On the other hand, John Portable toilets made toilets and gave them a name exactly as the phrase. Decision: The Appeals Court dismissed two issues of confusion and invasion of privacy stating that there was no likelihood of such occurrences. This was ruled as such because the plaintiff failed to provide concrete evidence on how the confusion would arise. The right to privacy claim was dismissed due to lack of facts which could be supported by the law. However, the court ruled that the Plaintiff’s right to publicity was severely violated. Reasoning: The court decided that there would be no substantially available evidence to proof the connection between the phrase and the other products from the company. In other words, the use of the phrase was associated with the appellant but not based on products but on celebrity status. Consequently, there would be no confusion when it comes to sale of products under the phrase. Notwithstanding this ruling, the fact that the plaintiff is known for using the phrase means there was an intrusion of publicity thus the reason for upholding this claim (Harvard Institute p.5). Case 5: Dr. Seuss Enterprises, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Penguin Books USA, Inc. Facts: Again, in this case the complaint was about a parody with the defendant claiming that use of characters from the original book was purely parody. However, the ninth circuit judge ruled otherwise where the defendant was found to be liable for infringement. Procedural history: On March in the year 1997, Dr. Seuss Enterprises lodged a complaint in the district court in United States against Penguin books Inc. this was after an audio development was made displaying similarities with the plaintiff’s earlier work. When the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed, the Court of Appeals was the next resort. Issues: The main issue was copyright infringement whereby the plaintiff complained that the defendant used several approaches in developing the work. On the other hand, the defendant claimed that the book, “The cat NOT in the hat” was totally different from “The cat in the hat”. Further, the defendant argued that the fact that differing texts and images were used meant that there was a distinction. Conversely, the plaintiff maintained that the use of the OJ Simpson character was paramount to infringement. Decision: In the end, the judge ruled that the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s character was not parody. Consequently, the defendant was held liable for infringement on the part of satirical but not the entire original work. Reasoning: It was argued that satirizing the original work would be considered harmless but not a case of a character especially when there is intent to use the product for commercial use. The defendant intended to use the book for commercial-related activities, which meant it would not only cause consumer-confusion but also would be an infringement on the original author’s work (“Satire or parody” p.12). Case 6: Elvin associates, V, Aretha Franklin and Brown Productions Inc. Facts: The case involved Aretha Franklin and Crown productions Inc. as the defendant in a tussle about contract breach. Elvin Associates were the plaintiff in this case where there was an established agreement that Franklin would star in the production of a musical piece, “mahalia” which he did not. Procedural history: The case was filed with both parties seeking compensation for what was purportedly money lost because of either not honoring respective end of bargain Elvin Associates represented Springer who demanded that Franklin pay for the losses incurred. Apparently, there was an agreement where Franklin was to perform in New York but failed to turn up. After that, Springer sought other singers who could fill the void for Franklin but never succeeded. The theaters where the singer was expected to perform demanded for deposits, which Springer did not have. Later, Springer sought Franklin performance after the one scheduled for July failed. Due to financial constraints, Springer was unable to secure a theater and abandoned the event. Consequently, the plaintiff felt that the defendant ought to have paid for breaching the initial agreement. Conversely, the defendant claimed compensation for the breached contract on the second agreement, Issues: In this case, the one problem evident is the breach of contract where both parties could be accused. Whereas, both failed to honor the agreement, Franklin refused to even communicate prior to the event until the representatives spoke about it. Decision: It was decided that the defendant was guilty on the charge of breaching contract. Additionally, the defendant was not to be compensated for the claims of breach of contract. Reasoning: The court reasoned that the plaintiff lost money due to the negligence and failure on the part of Franklin. Therefore, Franklin was to pay the plaintiff, and the request to have the plaintiff charged with breach of contrary for the defendant claim, it was dismissed (Flynn p.12). Case 7 Tom Waits, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Frito-Lay, Inc.; Tracy-Locke Facts In this case, the plaintiff was a singer, Tom Waits who sued Frito Lay Inc. together with Tracy Locke Inc. in a district court. The singer had been awarded attorney’s fees as well and other compensation due to usage and misappropriation of his voice in an advert by the defendants. Prior to the suit, the defendants- one a client, the other an advertising firm- had collaborated in trying to develop an advertisement using voice similar to Waits’. This was done through an impersonator who ended up sounding like Waits. Procedural history: The case was filed in 1992 and went through the district court to Appeals court. Firstly, the district court had awarded the singer both the attorney’s fees and compensation for the aforementioned reasons. Around $2.6 million had been awarded to the plaintiff as compensatory, attorney has and damage fees. Consequently, the defendants took the matter a little higher by seeking fresh assessment by the Appeals court. The argument fronted by the defendant in the Appeals court was that firstly, the attorney’s fees were quite high; secondly, the issue of voice misappropriation lacked merit because both parties were not in a competition. Issues: Contrary to many people’s expectations, the suit was not more on copyright issue but rather one of consumer confusion. The plaintiff complained that the consumers would think he endorsed the product contrary to the truth. However, the defendants argued that this was not likely since the singer was not in a similar business; further, there was a slight distinction in the voice. To ascertain this, the jury instructed that previous recordings by the singer be availed. Decision: After listening to the audio files by Waits the court ruled that it was likely for the consumers to think the singer endorsed the products. Furthermore, highly reliable evidence was available when actual consumers responded that they initially thought the voice in the recording Waits’. As a result, the jury dismissed the defendants’ argument and upheld the previous judgment by the lower court- district court (Waits, p1). Case 8: Constantin Film Produktion V. John Goodman, and Tipitina, INC Facts The case involved a German film production house against an individual, John Goodman as well as another production house in US. Before the case reached the court stage, both parties - Constantin Film Produktion GMBH and Goodman, had been involved in an oral agreement where the latter would star in a particular movie. Procedural history: In the month of May 2007, Constantin Film production house filed a suit against John Goodman, Tipitna Inc. and Does. John Goodman was scheduled to offer acting services to the German firm in a movie titled, Pope Joan. In the oral agreement, it had been agreed that for 12 weeks, there would an involvement between the two. Even though Goodman was to offer the services, it was not agreed that the said services would be offered consecutively. Instead, the services would be offered within the specified period but not necessarily in the orderly manner. Additionally, there would additional days after the acting whereby the parties would have further assessment for the work. . Consequently, the plaintiff claimed that there were losses being incurred because of dishonored promise by the defendant (Constantin Film Produktion p1). Issues: Breach of contract was the main issue in this case but both sides felt they have honored their respective sides. Decision: While the plaintiff strongly accused the defendant of not fully honoring the terms, the defendant maintained that the main parts of the agreement were honored save for the ones considered less important were not part of the agreement. In making the decision, the court ruled in the favor of defendant whereby it was decided that there was enough evidence to proof commitment. Reasoning: The court reasoned that the defendant had fulfilled the main parts of the agreement. Case 9 Louisa W. Hamer, Appellant, v. Franklin Sidway, Facts: A young man is promised some $5000 if he refrains from playing cards and smoking until age 21 is attained. William Story Sr. made the promise to his nephew but died without fulfilling it. Even after attaining 21, Story Jr. was not awarded for the efforts but an agreement was made to have him access the money later in life. The reason given by the uncle was that the nephew was too young to handle such huge amount of money. Before the demise of the uncle, Story Jr. had received a promise that the money would accrue interest. Later, the wife to Story Jr transferred the money to a Loiusa harmer. The suit ensued from this incident when Harmer could not access the money. Procedural history: In 1981, a case was filed with the previously mentioned persons being at the center of the case. When the hearing was opened, the final decision by the lower court was that the plaintiff lacked merit. As a result, the plaintiff lost the case albeit briefly since an appeal was lodged at the Court of Appeals in New York. Issue: The complication in this case was that the person promised was not the one currently holding the account. As a result, the director at Story I’s estate thought it unnecessary to pay the amount. On the other hand, it was successfully argued by the plaintiff that the director had a responsibility of ensuring the deposit of the money. Decision: The Appeals court reversed the previous decisions and ordered the estate director to honor the agreement irrespective of who held the interest. Reasoning: The court argued that even though the interest sum was held by a different person from the one promised, the director had to transfer the money (New York State Court n.p.). Case 10 Harley-Davidson, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, V. Ronald Grottanelli, Facts : A three-letter word, HOG was the center of this court battle where the plaintiff sought compensation for copyright infringement by Ronald Grotanelli. Interestingly, the latter had used the word way before Harley-Davidson Inc. (HD) registered it as one its mark in 1990. Many people viewed hog as a motorcycle of a bigger size but Harley-Davidson distanced from this until the term became quite popular. Grotanelli’s use of the word referred to the garage he operated – though he used it with an extension of farm, that is Hog farm- as well as several events he held. Furthermore, Grotanelli used a bar and shield sign as part of his logo, which curiously resembled that of Harley-Davidson Inc. Procedural history: It was not until January 1999 that the Appeals court made a decision that seemed to be balanced for both parties. None of the sides was satisfied with the decision at the district court and appeals were lodged where the final decision was made. Issue: the Plaintiff raised concerns of consumer confusion as well as copyright infringement. Firstly, the defendant was accused of using a term similar to HD’s. Secondly, the logo was close, if not exactly, to that of HD. Decision: In the Appeals court, it was decided that Grotanelli did not infringe on HD’s rights because the word hog was not used on its own. However, it was ruled that any usage of the word on its own would be a violation of HD’s copyright. In addition, Grotanelli was barred from using the logo, which was similar to HD’s. Reasoning: The court reasoned that there was a likelihood of consumer confusion and ordered that Grotanelli can continue with the publishing of materials related to the business but strictly adhere to the usage of the word hog with an additional one (Paralegal Journal, p.2). Case 11 Jordache Enterprises, Inc. vs. Hogg Wyld, Ltd Facts: Trademark infringement was the basis for this case to be filed at the District court in United States. The plaintiff claimed Hogg Wyld Ltd’s violation under the 15 USC 1051 as well as New Mexico’s trademark act. The Plaintiff was New York Company whose primary production clothes were the stylish jeans unlike the defendant’s approach of work-wear. Procedural history: The case started in 1985 but lasted for at least two years with the final decision eventually favoring the defendant. By the time of making the decision, the judges considered the names, the pictures used as well as the pronunciation of the words. The design of the pictures was also a consideration the judges did not overlook. Issues The defendant had been accused of infringing the copyrights of the plaintiff by imitating the design and words. Even though one was a horse and another a pig, the plaintiff argued that the consumers would think the Lardashe and Jordache were affiliated (Jordache Enterprises, Inc. vs. Hogg Wyld” n.p.) Decision: The final decision was that the plaintiff did not have a case to proof hence deciding in the favor of the defendant. Additionally, the court relied on some survey results, which seemed to proof the defendants’ claims that there would be no confusion. Reasoning In making the decision, the judge argued that there were many factors that did set the two companies apart. Firstly, one focused primarily on stylish jeans unlike the other whose clothes were more casual. Secondly, even though the words Lardashe and Jordache had similar pronunciation, their spelling differed. The judgment was greatly influenced by actual respondents surveyed where a whopping 58% thought the two products were not from one company. Case 12 W.O Lucy and J.C. Lucy V. A.H Zehmer and Ida S. Zehmer The plaintiffs sought the assistance of the court in compelling the defendants to honor an agreement made under controversial environment. The defendants owned a farm, which an oral agreement had been made to sell to the plaintiffs a few years back. Later, there was a change of mind until one evening when one plaintiff met with one of the defendants in a pub. In the process, the A.H. Zehmer signed on a receipt Okaying the sale of the land to W.O. Lucy. After confirming the parcel of the land was without dispute and its title was cleared, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant to honor his part. Instead, the defendant claimed that the signed bill was not done in a serious manner and that the plaintiff ought to have understood the defendant’s state of mind then. Procedural history: The trial court was the first to hear the case where the decision seemed to favor the defendant. When the plaintiff felt the judgment was not fair, the Supreme Court allowed the case to be heard. Issue: The real issue in this case was the role played by one’s state of mind when making a contract. Decision: The Supreme Court ruled specific performance on the defendant’s part. Reasoning: Quoting from Restatement First of contracts, the court stated, “The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract”. Additionally, the court asserted that at the time of signing the bill the plaintiff was not intoxicated excessively. Lucy was justified in viewing the transaction as real because of this fact (Levin College of Law n.p.) . Work cited Andrew C. Brown V. Robert G. Woolf. Journal of Supreme Court History. 12 (2) 1-4. 1983 "Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994). Cornell University Law School, 7 Mar. 1994. Web. 4 Nov. 2014. "H2O." Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc. Web. 4 Nov. 2014. "Hamer v Sidway." Hamer v Sidway. Web. 4 Nov. 2014. Retrieved from Justia Law,. 'Harley-Davidson, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, V. Ronald Grottanelli, Doing Business As The Hog Farm,Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 164 F.3D 806 (1999)'. N.p., 2014. Web. 4 Nov. 2014. Jordache Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., Susan Duran, Marsha Stafford and Oink,inc., Defendants-appellees, 828 F.2d 1482 (1987) "Paralegal Division :: TPJ ARCHIVE." Paralegal Division :: TPJ ARCHIVE. Web. 4 Nov. 2014. "Peter, Flynn. FRANKLIN." ELVIN ASSOCIATES v. FRANKLIN. Web. 4 Nov. 2014. Satire Or Parody? Dr.Seuss Enterprises V. Penguin Books USA Min's Blog'. N.p., 2014. Web. 4 Nov. 2014. Waits." Waits. Web. 4 Nov. 2014. Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/waits.html " Constantin Film Produktion GMBH. Journal of American Justice Review.12 (2) 202- 212.print W.O Lucy and J.C. Lucy V. A.H Zehmer and Ida S. Zehmer . Fredric G. Levin College of Law Retrieved from www.law.ufl.edu/_pdf/student.../lucy.pdf Read More