WalMart Case Essay Research Paper WalMart Copyright

  • Просмотров 270
  • Скачиваний 5
  • Размер файла 20
    Кб

Wal-Mart Case Essay, Research Paper Wal-Mart: Copyright and Trademark Lawsuit CITE: March 23, 2000 Wall Street Journal FACTS: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. won by a children-clothing designer, Samara Brother Inc., after it sued the Bentonville, Ark., retail giant and five other retailers in 1996 for copyright and trademark violations. Wal-Mart had a manufactured contract with a supplier in 1995 for a line of children s clothing based on photographs of Samara who has sued Wal-Mart in the past for copyright and trademark violation. Samara presented that their products have a distinctive look and style that customers can associate with them, thus still meeting the standard for trademark protection for design, known as trade-dress protection. Samara also argued that their distinctive

design of its children s wear gave a unique look that identified it in consumers mind as coming from Samara. Unfortunately, Justice Antonon Scalia, said that Samara s line wasn t protected by trademark law because Samara s products seem not inherently distinctive by its design, like color. It results that Wal-Mart wins the case by its merchandise-buying process. Now, under the high court s decision, the case will turn to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to be judged based on the guideline set by the Supreme Court. LAWS: 1. Under Trade Dress Guideline h You can t duplicate a highly distinctive style to the point where consumers would be confused. 2. Under Copyright Protection h The holder of a copyright owns the particular tangible expression of an idea, but not

the underlying idea or method of operation. h Under Supreme Court ruling, a company or designer would have the additional burden of providing that people associate the design with the maker. 3. Under Counterfeiting Laws h You can t use the logo and label of a designer to impersonate a product. 4. Under Trademark Laws h A trademark is any combination of words and symbols that a business uses to identify its products or services. h Trademark must be distinctive. COMMENT: According to the article, Wal-Mart wins reversal in Lawsuit over Trademarks, is a copyright and trademark lawsuit and Wal-Mart won the case versus Samara Brother Inc. The decision of the Justice seems relevant if it is judged over Laws words by words. As my understanding, U.S. Trademark Law does not protect certain

distinctive styles, but most companies don t bother with registering them. Brett Meyer, a copyright and trademark lawyer, said general run-of-mill basic designs, there is nothing that manufacturer can do to stop knockoffs. I think that the Laws of Copyright and Trademark lifts a potential cloud and unclear spots. It results that some companies can easily take advantage from the spots. Undoubted, Copyright is to protect people s innovative ideas. Copyright should be guild under enforcement in order to motivate innovation and avoid Me Too products or services. RED SOX: PUBLIC LAND-TAKING - Judge s decision is bad news for Red Sox. CITE: Tuesday, April 18th, 2000 BOSTON GLOBE FACTS: William Weld, the governor of Massachusetts promised the city $10 million for the project of

ballpark. The governor never said where he would get the money, but Springfield officials decided to pin the city s economic dream on a baseball field of dreams. When Red Sox came to collect on the Weld promise , Beacon Hill turned them down. Superior Court Judge of Massachusetts ruled against Public Land-Taking for a ballpark proposed in Springfield. The decision of Judge Constance Sweeney is appalling in 1. the stubborn arrogance of some public officials to force their definition of public good on the public 2. intriguing the legal limits of Land-Taking by eminent domain Judge s ruling is relevant that Springfield s attempt to take a downtown shopping mall and machine shop to create a ballpark did not serve a public purpose. Judge Sweeney s decision hinged on opinions issued by