Wednesday, October 16, 2019

Case Briefs Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Case Briefs - Assignment Example In 1976, the plaintiff took the case to a district court in Michigan State. In 1979, the Michigan’s district court dismissed the case in favor of the defendant Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets Inc. As an appellant, Carson appealed at the US Court of Appeals in Michigan State. The case was finally decided under the Michigan Court of Appeals 6th Circuit in 1983 (Smith, 21). In the district court, the plaintiff claimed that use of the phrase â€Å"Here’s Johnny† by the defendant amounted to violation of fair competition laws and invasion of privacy rights by the defendant. At the Courts of Appeals, the appellant maintained that use of the phrase in the defendant’s business amounted to unfair competition, invasion of privacy rights and invasion of right of publicity. The district court dismissed the case because the plaintiff failed to prove that use of the phrase by the defendant meets likelihood of confusion standards. The Courts of Appeals restrained the defendant, Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets Inc., from further use of the phrase â€Å"Here’s Johnny.† The district court reasoned that under Michigan common law, there was no likelihood of confusion among consumers of Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets Inc. and those of Carson’s apparel businesses. However, the Courts of Appeals reasoned that publicity rights belongs entirely to John Carson, and cannot be duplicated by third parties (Smith, 23). The Defendant, Time Warner, Inc. released digital formats of artists’ sound recordings through the internet. The online digital content generated substantial revenues, which were allegedly distributed to artists and assignees in a subjective manner. The Plaintiff, Tony Silvester et al, sued to recover compensation and damages resulting from breach of contract between the artists and the recording companies. The case was first brought to the US District Court of Southern New York in June 2000. After dismissal by the court in June 2002,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.