Legal Case Analysis - Research Paper Example

The issue was framed on the state’s authority to control private commercial enterprises that justified itself on protecting the health of children and women. The proceedings of this case clearly elaborated how children and women worked, and conditions of the factories they worked at as found by the Chief Factory Inspector, Florence Kelley, and her staff. The hearing and testimonies presented in the court constituted the truthful record that formed the foundation of the appeal to the Supreme Court (Ritchie v.

People (1895). The laws established that the case was still in effect until the Supreme Court of United State decided that the case was in favor of the National Consumers League. This was according to Muller v. Oregon judgment that was handed over on 24 February, 1908. Soon after the United Stated Supreme conclusion in Muller v. Oregon, Louis Brandeis, the attorney in the National Consumers League, claimed that before the Supreme Court had a hearing challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted Illinois law modeled precisely upon Oregon law that was upheld by the United States Supreme Court.

It was a fair decision since that case of Ritchie v. . Fifteen years later, the decision became a legal nullity, even though the opinion in 1895 was never completely overruled by either the Supreme Court of Illinois or the United States Supreme Court (Herman, 1987). Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Bros. Inc. (Forensic Evidence) On March 22, 2000, in an agreed decision, the Supreme Court of the United States handed a win to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. It also gave much needed intelligibility for the involved people in the case over a specific dress type and design.

In the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Bros. Inc. case, the court held that the plaintiff claimed a trade right following Section 43 (a) of the Lanham Act 2 for product designs that are not registered should provide evidence that the design is unique by showing that it has a secondary meaning as a source’s indication to consumers. The court refused the inherent test for inherent uniqueness raised by the owners of the dress trade in the case, the Clinton Management, and many IP associations. This meant that the tests are unproductive and unworkable in cases dealing with product design and made a decision that product design can by no means be inherently unique; rather, uniqueness must every time be acquired (Lemley et al., 2007). Decision Highlights The court made its decision on the case and the following is a summary: 1.

For it to give explanation for the raised question on a particular design of a product to meet the requirements for the trade dress protection in the situation where a registered trademark is non-existent, the court ruled that a petitioner should always avail proof that the design has obtained a secondary meaning. This resolved a tear in the US Circuit Appeal Courts (WAL-MART STORES INC. v. SAMARA BROS. INC). 2. The court