Mattel Vs Bryant Case Study

I agree with court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Marder’s grievance against Paramount. Ms. Marder made a contract with Paramount and sold away the rights to her story. The contract between Ms.Marder and Paramount was legal and binding; the courts could not favor her. Paramount became the legal own of Ms. Marder’s story at the time of its purchase; the price they paid for her story, although quite small, was the amount she had agreed to.

Deep Topics and others file a suit against CCS, alleging infringement of the plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights. Which type of intellectual property is involved in this situation? What is CCS’s likely defense? How is a court most likely to rule? Explain. 7) On May 1, Brand Name Industries, Inc. (BNI), sent Carol a letter, via overnight delivery, offering to employ her to audit BNI’s financial statements for the current year for $10,000. In the letter, BNI stated that Carol had ten days to accept. On May 5, Carol sent BNI a fax that stated, “The price for the audit seems too low. Would you consider paying $12,000?” BNI received the fax. The next day, Dan offered to conduct the audit for $8,000. On learning of Dan’s offer, Carol immediately emailed BNI, agreeing to do the work for $10,000. BNI received this e-mail on May 7. Explain why BNI and Carol do, or do not, have a contract.

1. Discuss the factors that have resulted in the NFL becoming “America’s Game” and the

M International and W Inc. have been engaged in long-standing litigation over a specific patent infringement matter. Pertains to the accounting for this contingency loss, this memo has made the following conclusions:

(the defendant). Cruz’s parents sent an email to Fagor on the date of the occurrence detailing said incident, and the defendant responded by denying liability. Cruz filed a complaint against Fagor alleging causes of action for negligence and product liability. Through his attorney, Cruz mailed the summons and complaint addressed to the company’s Chairman of the Board through certified mail requesting a return receipt. The receipt indicated that the envelope was accepted and signed for by an individual at the company headquarters, but Fagor failed to file an answer or make any appearance until after the plaintiff had entered a motion for a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion to set aside the entry of default and the default judgment, which the court granted on the grounds that there was no proof that the summons and complaint:

The appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. Three important considerations include the following: Personal jurisdiction which allows courts to have jurisdiction over both the plaintiff and defendant in a case. Specific to corporations, personal jurisdiction only applies in the state in which the company does business, is incorporated and has it principle office. In Margolin’s suit, personal jurisdiction would not apply because although the company does business in the state of New York, both Novelty Now and Funny Faces are not incorporated or have principle offices in this state.

Topnotch Computers, the owner of a computer store, contracted with Repair Guru, the owner of a computer repair business, to allow Repair Guru to own and operate a computer repair service offered within the Topnotch Computers store. Topnotch Computers subsequently terminated the three -year contract with Repair Guru with thirty-five months remaining. Five months thereafter Repair Guru was able to contract with another firm, Best Computer, to provide its computer repair equipment for use by Best in its stores. Repair Guru then filed suit, claiming that it was entitled to conduct the computer repair operations for Topnotch Computers for an additional thirty-five months and that through such operations it would have earned a profit of $150,000. Decision for whom and in what amount and

Issues: In what courts may Elle sue FDC? (What courts would have jurisdiction over this lawsuit)?

Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

M international (M) and W Inc (W) decided to enter a long term litigation, due to a patent rights violation. M being the demandant and W the respondent. Not enough information was provided in relation to the charges or the patent.

When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).

The Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley was a controversial case of the 20th century. The topic of black discrimination and freedom of speech became known to the Supreme Court in 1972. This case helped define the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and freedom of expression.

Facts: The plaintiff Taser International, Inc is a company that produced electronic devices such as stun guns, and even accessories that are needed with control devices. In addition, the company also manufactured TASER CAM which is an audio and video recording device that is mostly sold for military, security and public purposes. The defendant Steve Ward was a vice president of marketing in the Taser International Inc., who worked full time from January 1, 2004 to July 24, 2007 until the day he resigned. However, even though he was a full time employee, he was not part of any employment contract. The defendant Ward was aware of many confidential information and even trade secrets since he was the vice president of the company which is a very important aspect of the company. In 2006 Ward thought of getting legal advice on whether he could create an eyeglass-mounted camera by searching to see if this type of idea was patented already or not. The patent counsel found an eyeglass-mounted camera already to be patented and then the defendant Ward, thought about modifying his camera to a clip-on camera. On August 23, 2007 Ward formed his company known as Vievu LLC in order to get his product of a clip-on camera on to the market. But before his resignation he investigated more about developing a business plan, and about camera devices. As a result, Taser Company sued Ward for violating

The company hired a law firm named Kirkland and Ellis to handle their case because they have expertise in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The company will be reorganizing its $400 million-dollar debt. (Wahba p. 1) Toy R Us was involved in an antitrust settle with attorney generals from 43 different states. The company conspired with a couple of toy manufacturers to restrict the supply of desirable toys to warehouses and price clubs. Toys R Us was aiming to put these other warehouses at a competitive disadvantage (Mikhiber, p. 29). According to the Federal Trade Commission “the company had monopoly power in many local markets and used its dominant position as a toy distributor to extract agreements from and among toy manufactures to stop selling to warehouse clubs the same toys that they sold to other toy distributors” (Investor’s Business Daily, p. 1)

In 2012, a marine project manager called Bellingham Marine Inc. (“Bellingham”) hired Major Engineering Marine Inc. (“Major”) for a project to build a travel lift pier at a harbor. Bellingham then hired a civil engineering firm, Moffatt & Nichol