Plaintiff, John W. Carson, was a talk show host for “The Tonight Show,” which he started hosting in 1962. He was introduced into the show with the catchphrase “Here’s Johnny.” This show was broadcast five nights out the week. (Pg. 832). Johnny W. Carson formed a company called Johnny Carson, Inc., which was formed in 1970 that produce and markets Men’s clothing and retail stores. This company used the phrase “Here’s Johnny” that Johnny W. Carson approval. (Pg. 833) Defendant, Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., which was formed in 1976 by the owner and president, Earl Braxton, is a large organization in Michigan that rent out and sell “Here’s Johnny” portable toilets. The founder of this business knew that the phrase “Here’s Johnny” was a motto …show more content…
that was used on “The Tonight Show.”(pg.833) The talk show host, John W.
Carson, sued Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc. for the claim of unfair competition, invasion of privacy and publicity rights, and trademark infringement under federal and state law. The district court ordered a dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. (Page 833) The appellants’ first claim alleges unfair competition from defendant’s business actions, which violated Sec. 43a of Lanham Act and Michigan common law. The equitable relief under both Michigan common law and Sec. 43a was noted the “likelihood of confusion” standard by the district court. There are eight factors that determine the likelihood of confusion, which brings up the question of law. The eight factors are: strength of the plaintiff’s mark, relatedness of the goods, similarity of the marks, evidence of actual confusion, marketing channels used, likely degree of purchaser care, defendant’s intent in selecting the mark, and likelihood of expansion of the product line. (Page 833) The court discovered that “Here’s Johnny” was not a well-built mark and should be foreclosed completely. The court decided that the defendant did not mean to deceive the public into believing that John W. Carson was somehow affiliated with the
product. The court noted that there was no evidence that the defendant’s use of the catchphrase had damaged the plaintiff and had a small amount of evidence of actual confusion. Because of these reasons, the court decided that the defendant use of the catchphrase did not present a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception. (Page 834) The circuit court agree with the district court that the plaintiff have failed to establish a likelihood of confusion. The plaintiff also claim that the defendant use of the catchphrase “Here’s Johnny” disrupt the common law right of privacy and right of publicity. (Page 834) Because the defendant did not use John W. Carson’s name or likeness, the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim based on the right of publicity. (Page 834) Cornelia G. Kennedy, Circuit Judge, disagree with the majority’s opinion about the use of the phrase “Here’s Johnny” by the defendant which violates plaintiff’s common law right of publicity. He did not accept that the common law right of publicity can be lengthened beyond and individual’s name, likeness, achievements, identifying characteristics or actual performances, to include phrases or other obligations which are slightly associated with the individual. This case is not changed into a “name” case merely because petite form of John W. Carson’s Given name, or because of the phrase the defendant use on his product which the meaning of “John” that mean toilet. http://www.columbia.edu/~mr2651/ecommerce3/1st/Statutes/Lanham.pdf
The real dispute about the plaintiffs’ rights was focused on whether the fraud exception to the protection afforded to the registered proprietor by s. 184(3)(b) of the Land Title Act had been enlivened by the conduct of Mr Lacy and Mrs Capper as the plaintiffs’ admitted agents or by that of Mr Sultan. On the factual findings I have made, Mr Sultan has not been shown to have acted fraudulently nor to have been the plaintiffs’ agent.
There is one appellant and three respondents involved in these proceedings. Equuscorp Pty Ltd (referred to as “Equuscorp”) is the appellant. Ian Haxton, Robert Bassat and Cunningham’s Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd (referred to as “the respondents”) are the respondents. This matter was heard in the High Court of Australia in front of Chief Justice French and Judges Gummow, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell.
...awarded by a jury, this motion was denied by the judge. In the end Arnold & Porter lowered their desired settlement from $21 million to $15 million, Pittston offered $13 million. The two parties reach a settlement for $13.5 million, $8 million of which was for psychic-impairment.
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Judicial History: The District court of Iowa granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of National By-Products, Inc. The court determined that Dale Dyer had an invalid claim to bring forth a lawsuit, thus lacking consideration to create a contract.
In prior cases regarding parody, the court has adopted different statutory interpretations. In Harley Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806 (2nd Cir. 1998), the defendant like Pets, Inc., admitted to purposively creating an association with the plaintiff’s mark, the wordings used by the CEO of Pets, Inc. are not as explicit as that of Grottanelli, however, he clearly states that he designed Petpel No. 13 to evoke fun of Chapel. His statement
Johnny’s experience as an attorney falls far short of being the legal crusader that he envisioned for himself. Rather, it is quite short-lived . His legal career ends abruptly when his unpreparedness for an easy trial against a wealthy white woman causes him to lose the case for his client. Upon his hu...
The one of main factors is that costumers are swayed by product itself. Where are we buying it? What is the trademark of the product? How much is it? What is the product’s appearance? How about product’s use? And, does the product have a good quality? All of these questions will appear in our mind when we are making decisions. Thus, every consumer will accord to analysis by synthesis product itself, and focus on the product that he or she most favorite. The ways of vendition and the environment of vendition impact the buying behaviors of the customers. The seller makes an attempt to choose the right way and sell the products in the right environment. Consumers will select a safe channel, and according to legal order trade with the marketer. So, having a good channel and place is very important. Usually, a well-known trademark can attract customers to buy the product, because of its influence, history, or another factors. In
The Interaction Order of Public Bathrooms, written by Spencer E. Cahill, is an article that does a fairly well job at analyzing interpersonal relationships and individual practices in restrooms. Cahill used ideologies of Emile Durkheim, Erving Goffman, Margaret Atwood, Horace Miner, and Lyn Lofland to help construct his perspective on the individual’s expectations of bathroom etiquette through our experiences with others and how we internalize these behaviors.
Villiers, M. d. (2008). Substantial Truth in Defamation Law. New South Wales: University of New South Wales.
...motion. The court correctly held that there were insufficient allegations to state a First Amendment claims against Defendant. Furthermore, the court accurately concluded that Plaintiff failed to show that relevant aspects of Defendant’s search engine were equivalent of a traditional public forum. The Court decided properly when dismissing Plaintiff’s defamation allegations because these did not alleged malice. The holding of the United States Supreme Court in Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1991), United States v. E. I.du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956), Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), the interpretation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125, Cal. Civil Code §47 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 and the decision in New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft, 356 F. Supp.2d 1090 (2004) were crucial to properly decide on the case.
United States v. Sell, 343 F.3d 950, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26859 (8th Cir., Sept. 2, 2003)
GANNETT CO. v. DEPASQUALE. (n.d.).The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1301
The issue of gender neutral bathrooms and transgender bathrooms is a hot topic right now in North America. Some people are strongly for it and others are going to great lengths to stop it. The majority of public bathrooms in Canada and The United States of America are gender segregated. Public bathrooms are one of the last places to still be separated by gender. Men and women work with each other, sit next to each other in restaurants, use public pools together, and much more. A bathroom with a locked stall, or single occupancy washrooms with a lock, should not be much different. When the idea was raised by the LGBTQIA*+ community to have transgender bathrooms or gender neutral bathrooms, North America was divided. There were those with no
Not only did Target change their bathrooms to become gender neutral so did other well known businesses, “Barnes & Noble and Hudson 's Bay Company, also have policies explicitly allowing transgender people to use a bathroom that does not correspond to their birth certificate gender” (Abrams). Businesses have not been the only ones to change their policies with gender-neutral bathrooms, schools are starting to do the same, “Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa, has designated two bathrooms as gender-neutral”