Essay on Trade Mark and Intellectual Property Laws in Singapore

Liebeck v. McDonald’s, also known as the McDonald’s Coffee Case, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit. This lawsuit became one of the most famous in the US history because after the court’s awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million, after she was severely burned by the coffee she brought from McDonald, there were debates over tort reform in the US.

The breach of contract filed by McDonalds against Simon Marketing was eventually tossed out of court as the US District Justice ruled the case did not belong in federal court. Simon Marketing filed suit against McDonalds on October 23, 2001 asking for 1.9 billion in damages on charges of fraud, breach of contract, breach of licensing agreement and defamation. Simon Marketing alleged that by keeping them in the dark during the nearly year long FBI investigation, McDonald’s ran a fraudulent campaign to intentionally destroy Simon for its own public relations and financial benefit.” (Anonymous, 2002, para. 3-6).

Through the discovery and length of the case it was discovered that the company had a large number of complains with their coffee. It was also discovered that the coffee was made to be from 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, which can cause third degree burns in a few seconds. When it came to allocations, 80% of the blame was placed on McDonals and the remaining was placed on Stella; this

This release explains how NutraCea, a company based out of Phoenix, Arizona that manufactures and sells health food products, was involved in a very

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, aged 79 at the time, bought a coffee from the drive-thru of a McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She spilled the coffee on herself and received third-degree (full thickness) burns. She sued McDonald’s and was originally awarded almost $3 million in damages. This case is a perfect example of frivolous litigation and is one of the reasons some Americans think there needs to be civil justice reform.

The legal issue in dispute here is whether Star Athletica had committed copyright infringement on Varsity Brand’s uniform designs. While this case was in court, it was brought into question whether Varsity Brand had the right to copyright their uniform designs (color combinations, stripes and patterns). Depending upon whether Varsity Brands could copyright their uniform designs, would determine if Star Athletica was infringing upon those rights. Clarification about the ability to copyright designs would affect the fashion industry. Hence, this case received considerable attention.

This case provides us with multiple parties who are owed moral consideration while attempting to reach a decision. Banana Company, Orange Company, and

“Aleah, that is so ugly,” my friends exclaimed as I eagerly pulled out my brand new pants from their perfectly packaged shipping box. “But they’re Michael Kors!” I argued, as though it increased their appeal. The truth was, the price tag read $78.00, and they were completely see through. Within society, there are numerous people who spend thousands of dollars on designer clothing that is not considered attractive street fashion or good quality. Often, the reason clothing is priced highly is because it includes a logo to advertise the brand and proclaim that it is “the cool thing to wear” while pressuring surrounding people to buy from the same designer as an attempt to become cool as well.

The details in the McDonald's v. Stella Liebeck case are very similar to the details of the case in Class Action. However, the legal knowledge surrounding the cases were different. For example, in Class Action the company Argo knowingly put out a defective car because it was more financially convenient to pay for settlements than it would have been to recall every single vehicle and fix them. Similarly, McDonald's was aware that their coffee was held at very hot temperature standards that were extremely dangerous to their unknowing customers. McDonald’s argued on the basis that consumers preferred hot coffee so it was good for profit (Haltom, McCann 2004). A McDonald's safety consultant testified that they received 700 complaints of burns

On May 30, 2000 The Calvin Klein family filed a lawsuit against Warnaco Group Inc for eighteen counts of trademark infringement, trademark dilution and intentional misrepresentation. Nearly a month later Warnaco answered with a counter suit, denying the major allegations and justifying the dilution to falling within the scope of the two parities licensing agreement. The case study brings forth information regarding fashion retailing, distribution practices and even the licensing practices expected within the marketplace, however as a reader one should keep in mind that during the millennium “licensing

A.1 sought to introduce and launch a new poultry marinade item, and was planning to continue an aggressive marketing campaign against its competitors. However, marketing the new poultry product was a failure and A.1 had to reassess its strategies regarding the launching of new trial marinade brands. The major challenge that A.1 based however was protecting its market share, and brand integrity by counteracting though bold launch of a new steak sauce product by Lawry which was cheaper, and very similar to the A.1 product. Lawry Steak Sauce was one dollar less than A.1. Steak Sauce ($3.99 vs. $4.99), and the Lawry product were 11 ounces whereas A.1 was 10 ounces. Lawry’s product was also similar in taste, texture and packaging as the A.1 product which also presented a serious problem for A.1. Added to this was the fact that Lawry introduced its new product live on an interactive cooking show which gave the product an extra media boost. (Kerin & Peterson, 2011, 634)

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

To those who are not familiar with the processes within the fashion industry, this world of style is characterized by a peaceful coexistence between all the stakeholders. To those in the know however, this is far from the truth with the fashion industry. The value of the United Kingdom fashion industry is large contributing to about 20 billion pounds into the country’s economy on an annual basis. To have a better understanding, the contribution made by the fashion industry to the country’s Gross Domestic Product is almost twice that being brought in by car manufacturers which is valued at 10.1 billion so fashion is no doubt a major business and clothing designs one of the core assets. In considering this, it is therefore a surprise that businesses that are operating within this industry within this industry are not given the opportunity to do more to protect the designs that they have. This paper puts forward the assertion that based on the case law of J Choo(Jersey) Limited v Towerstone Limited and Others, the system of intellectual property protection available in United Kingdom law is not fit for use in the fashion industry in its present condition.

In addition, McDonald’s has been facing a series of lawsuits and defamations. An example of such

This site contains information on China's patent and copyright law. It goes on to discuss some ethical issues about China's lack of law enforcement on intellectual property protection.