Kaushay Colvin
Section 001
Law
I attest that this assignment is entirely my own work, done originally and specifically for this assignment in this class.
Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 13-1211 (2014). Hana Financial, Inc., a California Corporation, v. Hana Bank, a Korean corporation; Hana Financial Group, a Korean Corporation
Most Recent Court Activity: Petition for Writ of Certiorari granted by the United States Supreme Court on 23 June 2014. This case was most recently ruled on 22 November 2013 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Where I Found the Case: Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 13-1211 (2014). Retrieved July 22,2014, from http://supremecourtreview.com/case/13-1211.
When I was looking for a case
…show more content…
Is making this decision a question of law that should be decided by the courts, or a question for juries to …show more content…
Those ways include finding for either the plaintiff or the defendant, and deciding whether trademark cases are questions of law or of fact. In my opinion finding for the plaintiff is also acknowledging that trademark tacking is a question of the law. Whereas finding for the defendant seems that it would make trademark tacking a question of fact for the jury to decide.
To further understand what this means to me, I want to elaborate on what I consider a question of law versus a question of fact. To me a question of law is one that means something is legal or illegal. In this case saying that trademark tacking is a question of law would mean that trademark tacking is always allowed under certain circumstances or it is never allowed. It would mean that the cases weren’t up for interpretation the way that this case is. Instead it would be a more hard and fast rule that the courts decide on now and wouldn’t have to decide on
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
EEOC v. Consolidated Service System, 989 F.2d 233 (Cir. 1993), as cited by Bennett-Alexander, D.D. and Hartman, L. P. (2014) at 195.
Questions Presented: This is where the legal issues are stated that the party would like for the appellate court to think about and make a final decision (Statsky, pg. 545).
By 1997 the case, along with another case, (Quill v. Vacco), reached the Supreme Court. The decision in the Supreme Court did not, however, meet up to the original case. The defense won the trial.
al., Appellants v. City of New York et al. Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. 1998. Web. 6 May 2014.
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
“NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).” Case Law. Find Law, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
"Key Supreme Court Cases: Schenck v. United States - American Bar ..." 2011. 14 Jan. 2014
Tracy First v. City of Tracy, Third Appellate District 914 Capitol Mall, 4th Floor Sacramento,
"Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. .
The Supreme Court, which sees almost 150 petitions per week, called cert petitions, must carefully select the cases that they want to spend their time and effort on (Savage 981). If they didn’t select them carefully, the nine justices would quickly be overrun, so they have put in place a program to weed through the court cases to pick out the small number they will discuss. There are a few criteria that are used to judge whether or not a case will be tried. The first is whether or not the lower courts decided the case based on another one of the Supreme Court’s decisions for they will investigate these in order to withhold or draw back their conclusion that they made in their court case. Another is the case’s party alignment: sometimes the justices will pick cases that will align with their party beliefs, like trying to get a death row inmate off of his death sentence. They also make claims about the “life” of the case- the Supreme Court only hears “live” cases- they do not try to go back in time and re-mark a case that has long since been decided (Savage 981). Lastly, they like to take cases where the lower courts did not decide with one another -these cases can have t o do with interpretations of the law that have been left up to the lower courts and should be specifically defined by the Supreme Court (Savage 982).
Fact 3. When the next president is in office he or she could engage two or three Supreme Court Justices, which could probably change the Court’s situation on the case. Where is your stance on this issue? Do you have all the facts to make an knowledgeable decision?
In this case, Tiffany versus eBay lawsuit, Tiffany have argued that eBay should be held responsible for contributing on user’s trademark violations, trademark dilution, and false advertising. However, the Second Circuit found that eBay was not directly or secondarily liable for such trademark infringement or dilution. Though, the appeals court remanded Tiffany’s false advertising claim to the lower court on the basis that some advertisements on eBay for Tiffany products may have been misleading (Anderson & Schvimmer, 2010).
Each area of the law is separate and in large part specific to one kind of intellectual property only. For example, patent law protects inventions, such as your calculator, but not works of art, such as an original pa...
In China, the legislative framework for the registration for certification mark is completely different from the framework present in India. Moreover the new PRC trademark law which has come into effect from 1st May 2014 bought substantial changes to the current trademark regime in place in China. The protection afforded to well known trademark has been increased as Article 14 of the new Act provides that determination of well known trademark would be undertaken in case of infringement of well known trademark. However procedural norms regarding opposition proceedings have been drastically altered and now if the opposition fails at the Trademark Office level, which is the first level of review for an opposition, the mark would immediately proceed to registration. This is in contrast to the current state of law which allows the opponent in such a situation to appeal to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and further apply for judicial review at two levels of court. In addi...