Passing Off Notes

State of New South Wales v Lepore [2003] 212 CLR 511, 536 per Gleeson CJ.

Having knowledge of your consumer and them of you verse having them have knowledge of your business will draw them to the front door of your business.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

The plaintiffs pointed out that Campbell had recorded all customer sales on an FOB shipping point basis. In fact, the actual shipping terms for many of Campbell’s sales were FOB destination. PwC was aware of this practice and had decided that since Campbell used the sales cutoff policy consistently, it would not have a material effect on Campbell’s operating results. The judge found this conclusion reasonable and did not pursue the matter any further.

This court case involved the plaintiff Hamptons Landscaping Service Inc., who had been represented by Lieb at Law, P.C. This side of the case then was seeking summary judgment to recover $17,217.00, from the defendants Michael & Frances Sherman who had been represented by Kelly and Hulme, P.C. which was alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment causes of action. The Sherman’s had crossed moved seeking an order dismissing Hampton's complaint, also had asserting that Second

This case is about Amsterdam Brewery, which produced over 20 different craft brews, each with its own brand name. Jeff Carefoote was the owner and president of Amsterdam Brewery wanted to decide on promotional strategies that would increase its profitability and grow company’s brand. The company was also experiencing operational capacity issues due to continuously increasing demands. As a result, Carefoote had decided to invest in capital expansion to increase Amsterdam’s brewing capacity. Several problems were created like The Ontario Craft Brewers Organisation didn’t promote craft breweries because its laws were not supportive for craft breweries. After that, in order to increase brewing capacity, Amsterdam moved operations to midtown Toronto and the high capital costs for expansion made Carefoote hesitate. Moreover, the brewing time was also connected to the beer’s retail selling price because some beers required more complex processes that resulted in higher costs and higher selling prices.

This group report will provide case study about Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) HCA 66. This is a High Court of Australia case to determine Neil York and Beryl York as the defendant and Leahy as the plaintiff. Leahy sued the defendant for challenge the legality of choice in the will of Bill York.

The plaintiff is a citizen of West Virginia, a state in which the Pittston Company is not incorporated and has their principal place of business. Pittston Company’s current and primary place of business is 250 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017 as well as having their principal operating offices in Dante, Virginia.

The plaintiff argued these allegations and presented many evidence such as advertising materials and postcard were sent by the defendant to East Carolina’s customers to entice them to make a reservation . As a consequence, this court found the first element satisfied. In addition to this element, this court found that due process was not violated by this law .The presented evidence shows that the defendant has minimum contacts which require “ defendant to purposely avail himself of the privileges and benefit of forum state” which existed in this case when the defendant was benefiting itself of conducting some activities in forum state. Finally, the court took into consideration 5 factors to decide whether having jurisdiction over this case would prevent the idea of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The burden on defendant was the first factor court examined and it shows it would be burdensome for the defendant to have the case heard in East Carolina due to several reasons such as not having property or an office as well as bringing the jet ski involved in the accident. The second factor was the interest of the forum state which is in favor of the

• Eveready Australia Pty Ltd v Gillette Australia Pty Ltd OR Taco Company of Aust Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (“objective test”)

Evaluate the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] AC 677, [2016] 2 WLR 821

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather PLC, 2 WLR 53 (House of Lords 1994).