Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Answer 1

1-1. GM Motors’s Suit


This issue here is a matter of confusion of consumers, which is caused by using a
similar trademark, and infringement of trademark right.

The purpose of trademark is to prevent someone from unfair uses of a symbol,


word, logo, design, slogan, or image. And it allows consumers avoid confusion
from using similar marks. A trademark must be distinctive. In order to identify
uniqueness, four categories (arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, and generic) are
based.

The litigation of GM Motors is justified in that the lawsuit is a behavior to protect


GM Motors’ trademark right. However, this is controversial in that unlike GM
Motors, The GM Store is not selling relevant or competitive products such as cars
or related parts.

In Korea, 2009, Gianni Versace sued one small motel, “Versace Hotel.” Gianni
Versace argued that the Korean motel is causing consumer confusion by using the
same Versace. At the first trial, the verdict was against the plaintiff, explaining that
the consumers are not likely confused between Versace with a deluxe hotel and
the small Korean motel. The verdict has been recently amended in a high court.
The court found legal ground in assertions of the plaintiff, citing that “Hotel and
motel are in the same kind of a business, and a significant similarity in both
trademarks is existed.

In contrast, GM Motors’ argument is not justified in that unlike the Versace case,

1/6
consumers are not likely confused both GM marks. GM Motors is a descriptive
mark as a motor company, but the image of GM Stores is not well relevant to the
motor industry because it is the small retailer selling used electronic products.

1-2. Bud’s Suit


This issue is whether the purchaser can sue a company locating in another state.

Federal courts generally deal with both jurisdictions: personal jurisdiction and
subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is whether a court has power over
a defendant, while subject matter jurisdiction deals with the cases a federal court
hear. Personal jurisdiction requires a domicile or minimum contracts, but subject
matter jurisdiction requires diversity in amount of controversy or support any claims
through federal question.

As The GM Store is located in New York City, it is out of personal jurisdiction.


Personal jurisdiction requires a tight relationship between a defendant and a court.
The defendant has neither address nor branches or franchises in the state. Subject
matter jurisdiction requires minimum $75,000 for a suit. The Bud’s case is not likely
to exceed $75,000. As such, The GM Store is not becoming an object of subject
matter jurisdiction. One thing to consider is the possibility for Bud to change
jurisdiction from Montana to New York.

Considering the federal court’s jurisdiction and the fact that Bud is suing in his
state, Montana, The GM Store is in favor of legal position. That is the company has
no responsibility on responding the suite other than the plaintiff to change
jurisdiction.

2/6
Answer 2
2-1. Joey’s Suit
This issue here is the lawsuit for a defective product from a purchaser.

Consumer protection laws are designed to ensure fair trade competition and
prevent businesses that engage in fraud. It is also connected to consumer
sovereignty in that consumers can be misled by marketing or ads that have no
benefits to buyers. In the United State, the six basic rights 1had established to
protect consumers and their sovereignty. Both the right to be safe and the right to
serve are relevant to this case.

The GM Store as a seller is in fact in a disadvantage position because the


defendant has advertised a used product to be a good as new. To deal with Joey’s
claim, an investigation is necessarily executed to identify whether the problem is
caused by a customer mistake or the product itself. Also whether the purchaser
has paid carefully attention in the process of purchasing should be investigated.

Other factors such as CDs or customer service might affect a result of the suit. The
CDs were not sold at The GM Store. The defendant should consider the possibility
of CDs’ fault. Customer service is also important in a verdict since customer have
the right to serve.

Consumers are protected by the law of consumer protection for purchasing and the
related services. In contrast, sellers are also protected from buyer’s claims by
demonstrating buyers’ faults, abuses or frauds.

1
Six Basic Rights: the right to be safe, the right to choose freely, the right to be heard,
the right to be informed, the right to education, and the right to service. “In 1962,
President John F. Kennedy presented a speech to the United States Congress in which
he extolled four basic consumer rights, later called The Consumer Bill of Rights.”

3/6
2-2. Albert’s Suit
This suit is about infringement of patent. The problem is whether an idea provider
can sue the real patent owner who has earned the patent with the source of the
idea.

A patent infringement occur when the defendant makes, uses, offers to sell, or
imports an invention or its equivalents. No infringement action may be started until
the patent is issued. However, since pre-grant protection is available under the law,
a patent owner is allowed to obtain a protection right before the issuance of patent
date.

Under the circumstance, whether who has revised and handed in the final edition
to get a patent right is likely to be a critical yardstick for judgment in making a
verdict. Albert is obviously an original producer of the idea, but he did not any
actions to protect the idea as well as with no patent. Secondly, Albert may sue the
professor and his friend, Tom, in the name of idea piracy for profits. Albert left the
sample based on credibility to the professor. This is a moral issue rather than a
legal problem. And although Albert files a suit, it might not be easy to submit
evidence with respect to the facts.

In conclusion, the possibility of defeat of Albert seems to be large since the


possibility of revocation of the patent from the professor is very low. Without a clear
evidence to support the fact that the professor has stolen his idea for a patent, a
court is against the plaintiff, Albert, in a verdict.

4/6
Answer 3

Ted’s Case
This case includes several legal issues in terms of infringement of patent, trade
secret, and copyright.

First of all, the exercise of infringement of a patent is stated in cases that :


When the conduct of a third party with no legal rights, infringes on an invention of
another is clearly a valid legal cause of action. To identify the extent of
infringement, some main criteria, such as availability, technical coverage, sales
activities, and rights of pos-session, are used. In this case, technical coverage and
right possession are mainly debatable.

As the professor has registered the patent, he has many patent holder's rights.
Since the technology has been upgraded through the specs enhancement, the
technology belongs to the technical range. He is selling the electronic products
based on the technology (e.g., VCR, DVD, CD and Gameboy), and owns both the
patent and the copyright. Under the circumstances, Ted’s decision to switch
employers and work at another company might lead to legal restraints against
infringement of the patent.

Secondly, a corporation's knowhow is a kind of legalistic object of protection, and


defined a as trade secret. For instance, some non-patented information like the
concentrate liquid of Coca Cola, which contributes to that company in revenues, is
regarded as a trade secret.

The law prohibits third parties, employees, and the retired, from the possibility of
illegal use of knowledge. Since the professor has created a new machine with an
advanced technology and a unique design, if Ted leaked a secret to other

5/6
companies, his behavior could be punished as a crime under the trade secret law.

Lastly, the design of the new machine is related to a copyrighted exclusive design.
Ted without permission from professor, who is the copyright owner, has tried to
take valuable rights to the new company that he seeks to move to. This intention
and the related activities are relevant to the infringement of the copyright.

The professor can ask the court to take measures against the infringement from
Ted. He can also regard that Ted's hiring company as a potential pirate. He should
make claims for compensation for costs coming from any prevention activities
relating to the potential infringement.

In summary, the professor can be protected by the laws that are patent right, trade
secret, and copyright. Both Ted and his new company shall indemnify against any
and all liability, costs, and damages, including attorney’ fees and defense
expenses. But the professor must show or inform them some practicable
evidences telling such infringement or unauthorized behaviors.

6/6