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.
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionChapter 8 Solutions
The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases (MindTap Course List)
- Elizabeth is out with her friends at a bar one night. The bartender notices someone slip a pill into Elizabeth’s drink. If Elizabeth commits a crime later that night, the bartender can best testify on her behalf. Which defense most likely applies to this situation? (Whether or not the defense will work is not relevant.) A. Duress B. Involuntary Intoxication C. Mistake of Factarrow_forwardStephen Glass made himself infamous as a dishonest journalist by fabricating material for more than forty articles for The New Republic and other publications. At the time, he was a law student at Georgetown University. Once suspicions were aroused, Glass tried to avoid detection. Later, Glass applied for admission to the California bar. The California Supreme Court denied his application, citing “numerous instances of dishonesty” during his “rehabilitation” following the exposure of his misdeeds. How do these circumstances underscore the importance of ethics?arrow_forwardAmanda is babysitting when her charge Tomas leaps off a couch onto a glass table and breaks it, leaving him with many cuts. To show that Amanda was negligent, Tomas’s parents must show that: Amanda owed a duty of care to Tomas Amanda breached her duty of watching over Tomas by her actions (e.g., talking on the phone or not staying in the same room as Tomas) Tomas was harmed only because Amanda breached her duty to watch over him All of the abovearrow_forward
- BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage LearningEssentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage LearningAccounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
- International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education