The person J and the person LF owned the H club. The person LF opened several clubs, enterprises, and published a magazine under the trademark H and LF. When the person J opened his own store under the name H, he paid the license fee to the person LF for using its trademarked name. But later on, he stopped paying fees. The company LFP, owned by the person LF, filed a case against the person J for infringement of trademark H. The court passed an injunction order against the person J preventing the person J from using the H trademark. The person J opened a new retail store named FS gifts. The person LF sued the person J for violating the injunction order passed by the court. To Find: The result of the case if the person J had used the marks on an entirely different line of goods.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 8, Problem 3CT

Summary Introduction

Case summary:The person J and the person LF owned the H club. The person LF opened several clubs, enterprises, and published a magazine under the trademark H and LF. When the person J opened his own store under the name H, he paid the license fee to the person LF for using its trademarked name. But later on, he stopped paying fees. The company LFP, owned by the person LF, filed a case against the person J for infringement of trademark H. The court passed an injunction order against the person J preventing the person J from using the H trademark. The person J opened a new retail store named FS gifts. The person LF sued the person J for violating the injunction order passed by the court.

To Find:The result of the case if the person J had used the marks on an entirely different line of goods.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

You have likely heard of the Liebeck v. McDonalds case. Liebeck spilled hot McDonald's coffee in her lap, suffering third degree burns. At trial, evidence showed that her cup of coffee was brewed at 190 degrees, and that, more typically, a restaurant's "hot coffee" is in the range of 140-160 degrees. A jury awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The judge reduced the punitive award to $480,000, or three times the compensatory award. Comment on the case, and whether the result was reasonable.

Which of the following does not describe the concept of proximate cause in the tort of negligence? (Choose all of the correct answers.) Could the plaintiff reasonably foresee the defendant would engage in this particular harmful conduct? Could the defendant reasonably foresee his conduct could lead to the injury suffered by the plaintiff? Could the defendant reasonably foresee he had a duty of the plaintiff? Could the plaintiff reasonably foresee the injury he suffered? Was the defendant the actual cause of plaintiff's injury?

(1) Strict Liability: Was the McDonald's coffee case an appropriate one for strict liability, based either on an unreasonably dangerous product or inadequate warnings? Look over the requirements for strict liability, and apply the facts as known about this case to the requirements for strict liability in these circumstances.