WalMart Case Essay Research Paper WalMart Copyright

Wal-Mart Case Essay, Research Paper

Wal-Mart: Copyright and Trademark Lawsuit

CITE: March 23, 2000 Wall Street Journal

FACTS: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. won by a children-clothing designer, Samara Brother Inc., after it sued the Bentonville, Ark., retail giant and five other retailers in 1996 for copyright and trademark violations.

Wal-Mart had a manufactured contract with a supplier in 1995 for a line of children s clothing based on photographs of Samara who has sued Wal-Mart in the past for copyright and trademark violation. Samara presented that their products have a distinctive look and style that customers can associate with them, thus still meeting the standard for trademark protection for design, known as trade-dress protection. Samara also argued that their distinctive design of its children s wear gave a unique look that identified it in consumers mind as coming from Samara.

Unfortunately, Justice Antonon Scalia, said that Samara s line wasn t protected by trademark law because Samara s products seem not inherently distinctive by its design, like color. It results that Wal-Mart wins the case by its merchandise-buying process. Now, under the high court s decision, the case will turn to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to be judged based on the guideline set by the Supreme Court.

LAWS:

1. Under Trade Dress Guideline

h You can t duplicate a highly distinctive style to the point where consumers would be confused.

2. Under Copyright Protection

h The holder of a copyright owns the particular tangible expression of an idea, but not the underlying idea or method of operation.

h Under Supreme Court ruling, a company or designer would have the additional burden of providing that people associate the design with the maker.

3. Under Counterfeiting Laws

h You can t use the logo and label of a designer to impersonate a product.

4. Under Trademark Laws

h A trademark is any combination of words and symbols that a business uses to identify its products or services.

h Trademark must be distinctive.

COMMENT: According to the article, Wal-Mart wins reversal in Lawsuit over Trademarks, is a copyright and trademark lawsuit and Wal-Mart won the case versus Samara Brother Inc. The decision of the Justice seems relevant if it is judged over Laws words by words. As my understanding, U.S. Trademark Law does not protect certain distinctive styles, but most companies don t bother with registering them. Brett Meyer, a copyright and trademark lawyer, said general run-of-mill basic designs, there is nothing that manufacturer can do to stop knockoffs.

I think that the Laws of Copyright and Trademark lifts a potential cloud and unclear spots. It results that some companies can easily take advantage from the spots. Undoubted, Copyright is to protect people s innovative ideas. Copyright should be guild under enforcement in order to motivate innovation and avoid Me Too products or services.

RED SOX: PUBLIC LAND-TAKING

- Judge s decision is bad news for Red Sox.

CITE: Tuesday, April 18th, 2000 BOSTON GLOBE

FACTS: William Weld, the governor of Massachusetts promised the city $10 million for the project of ballpark. The governor never said where he would get the money, but Springfield officials decided to pin the city s economic dream on a baseball field of dreams. When Red Sox came to collect on the Weld promise , Beacon Hill turned them down.

Superior Court Judge of Massachusetts ruled against Public Land-Taking for a ballpark proposed in Springfield. The decision of Judge Constance Sweeney is appalling in

1. the stubborn arrogance of some public officials to force their definition of public good on the public

2. intriguing the legal limits of Land-Taking by eminent domain

Judge s ruling is relevant that Springfield s attempt to take a downtown shopping mall and machine shop to create a ballpark did not serve a public purpose. Judge Sweeney s decision hinged on opinions issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Red Sox argued that SJC has ruled that governmental acquisition of land and the financing and construction of a sports stadium may be considered a valid public purpose.

The Boston City Council will also have to approve any eminent domain taking. Herbert Gleason, a former city corporation counsel in Boston, said The Springfield case deals not just with the process in Springfield, which is obviously offended Judge Sweeney, but with public purpose in eminent domain taking.

LAWS: A Sport Stadium may be considered as a valid public purpose:

1. if the expenditure of public funds

2. if extension of public privileges, power, and exemptions and the use, rental, and operation of the projects

are adequately governed by appropriate standards and principles set out in the legislation.

It is also a fundamental principle of law that government can only exercise its eminent domain power for a public purpose.

COMMENT: The decision of Judge Sweeney is quit fair, but there is space left which is needed to be discussed. Obviously, Taxpayer dollars should not be used to build stadium for the purpose of benefiting privately owned baseball franchises. The Red Sox must show a public pu

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать