Cited in support of this proposition was Darden v. Peters, 402 F. Supp. 2d 638, 644 (E.D.N.C. 2005) where the Court upheld the Copyright Office's denial of copyright registration for a web site. In reaching this result, the Darden court quoted the copyright examiner's determination that "protection for the overall format of a web page is inconsistent with copyright ability." The court held that there was inadequate factual development to permit it to resolve the pre emption question at this time, and accordingly denied defendants' motion to dismiss the trade dress claim.
CONCLUSION
In the light of the aforesaid elucidations certain aspects of tradedress can be comprehended in the contemporary era specially in the Indian jurisidiction,
…show more content…
This decision by the Court evident exhibits the determined nature of the judiciary to not only safegaurd trade mark per se but to presever the properitory interest over different types of trademarks as a whole. Moreover, India has embodied in its statute the identical provisions as the Lanham Act for trade dress security but unlike the United State’s Trademark code, India has restrained itself from giving an extensive enumeration as to what can constitute as trade dress and what would be the ingredients for its infringement. This approach would prove to be benificial in due to the fact that judiciary’s freedom to explore trade dress infringement would be more. Although in the recent pronouncements this aspect of judicial scrutiny may be deplorable for the defendants as once the trade dress is acknowledged it would invariably lead to an infringement suit being made out and an injunction order being passed. Therefore, trade dress criteria’s not being set may turn out to be a double-edged sword
Wife appealed from the judgement of Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County, N.Y., Morrie Slifkin, J modifying a judgment of divorce by awarding custody of the parties’ children to the husband.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
In responding to Clarence Darrow's arguments in the Henry Sweet case and in the Leopold and Loeb case, there are some considerations that would have to be addressed in the same manner in both cases. The cases however, differ in many ways that would result in very different responses to the cases. An advocate opposing Darrow would face two factors described above. First, simply opposing Darrow creates some necessary response by the advocate, covered by those arguments that remain constant in the two cases. Second, individual aspects of each case dictate specific response by an advocate, which is covered by those arguments that differ in each case. Opposing Darrow would be a daunting task for any attorney, but winning a case against him would not be impossible if the advocate minds both his opponent and his argument.
This assignment will cover a fictitious name of Mary Cooper a woman accused of harboring a fugitive, and illegal stolen equipment. The police attempted an illegal search and seizure in her home without a search warrant. This violates her Fourth Amendment rights. Cooper held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the exclusion of evidence found though an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the state a rule that previously applied onto to federal law enforcement.
George Eldridge resided in Norton, Virginia, which is a small coal mining city located in the southwestern corner of Virginia. Mr. Eldridge worked for the Interstate Railroad, he was a member of the military, and worked for Royal Crown Cola. While at Royal Crown Cola, Mr. Eldridge became totally disabled; chronic anxiety, back strain, and diabetes. In the 1940s, Mr. Eldridge had been diagnosed with spinal arthritis. Mr. Eldridge’s health continued to degenerate as a result of his strenuous delivery jobs. However, over the years Mr. Eldridge had acquired a family and purchased a house. After working eight years as a delivery driver, he was no longer able to perform his job. Shortly after Mr. Eldridge became disabled, he began to suffer from diabetes
Davis v. Davis deals with a couple from Knoxville, TN, Junior Lewis Davis and Mary Sue Davis (now Stowe), who eventually turned to in vitro fertilization (IVF) after having much difficult conceiving naturally. Five unsuccessful tubal pregnancies and six attempts of IVF implantations later, the couple allowed the facility to cryogenically preserve their last remaining ova in their final efforts. Their marriage ultimately came to an end, resulting in this dispute regarding the disposition of their “frozen embryos”. The couple was unable to come to an agreement from the very beginning to the end, with Mary Sue initially wanting the embryos with the intent to transfer to her own uterus and Junior wanting them to remain frozen until he decided to
The aim of this essay is to critically discuss how the law of passing off and trade mark law have common roots and therefore are, in many respects, similar. I will begin with a short brief history of trade mark law and the law of passing off. I move on to discuss the similarity between trade mark law and the law of passing off with reference to relevant case law and statutes. Although, passing off and trade mark law deal with overlapping factual situations, s 2(2) of the Trade Mark Act 1994 maintains passing off as a separate cause of action. When a trade mark is threatened by the actions of third parties the proprietor will bring an action for both passing off and trade mark infringement which both share many similarities. However, they are
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
Dred Scott was born a slave in the state of Virginia around the 1800's. Around 1833 he was purchased from his original owner, Peter Blow, by John Emerson, an officer in the United States Army. Dr. Emerson took Dred Scott to the free state of Illinois to live, and under it's constitution, he was eligible to be free. In around 1836, Dred Scott and his owner moved to Wisconsin territory, a territory that was free under the Missouri compromise. It was in Wisconsin that Dred Scott met and married Harriet Robinson. John Emerson was transferred in 1837 to Ft. Jessup, Louisiana, were he met and married Irene Sandford. Dred Scott and his wife followed Dr. Emerson and his wife from duty station to duty station; they ended up in St. Louis Mo. In May 1840 Dr. Emerson was ordered to war in Florida. Dred Scott remained in St. Louis with his family and Mrs. Emerson. Dr. Emerson returned home after the war, and relocated to Iowa. This time he left the Scotts behind and rented them out. This would be the last time Scott would see Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson passed away in 1843, leaving the Scott family to his wife, Irene. In 1846 Dred Scott attempted to buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson, who refused his offer. With the help and encouragement of John Anderson, their minister, Dred Scott decided to sue.
Legal Pluralism is the presence of various legal systems within a single country or a geographical area. Legal Pluralism is omnipresent although it is generally assumed to exist in countries only with a colonial past. This is because in most countries with a colonial past, colonial laws co-exist alongside indigenous laws. However, if we look at the expansive definition of legal pluralism, it can be said that every society or country if legally plural. The modern definition of legal pluralism also deals with the issues of relation between state and non-state legal orders. It shows the dichotomy that exists between customary legal norms and state law. The judiciary of India has upheld this principle of pluralism in many cases by showing that
Various cases have come to light before the judiciary related to trade mark infringement. Some of them have been discussed below to understand the topic in detail.
The basis of the criminal justice system in India can be traced to its once colonial power, Britain. Many institutions, law and legal traditions, and even the form of government in India has been derived from the United Kingdom. In order to examine India’s modernizing criminal justice system, one must study where this system descended from. Through colonialism, the legal tradition of English common law was introduced to the colony of British India. This in which led to the secularization of law and justice and the reconstructing of the criminal justice system. As Karl Marx stated, “India could not have entered into the modern age without the reach of British colonialism” (Shahidullah, 2012, p.259). A central notion throughout postcolonial development is whether the imperialism of Western states hindered or transgressed the modernity in former colonies. However, in this case, colonialism was a stimulant for the creation of a modern criminal justice.
The Lotus case garners attention due to the fact that it was among the first cases dealing with whether jurisdiction was assumed in accordance with principles of international law. While the Lotus case was heard in the context of criminal jurisdiction over a collision in the high seas, the Lotus principle has been applied in a variety of other cases in varying contexts. For this reason, the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice is critiqued for specifically answering only the question in the special agreement as the continued application of the Lotus Principle as a general principle in other contexts such as anti-trust regulations may lead to ambiguous results.