BUSINESS LAW
Chanel Inc. v. Banks
In the case before the court, the plaintiff deems it appropriate to file charges against Banks who runs a website selling counterfeit products bearing the trademarks that are identical to Chanel’s trademarks. However, being in a foreign region, Banks is not bound by the laws of the other region. However, by running an interactive website, she is liable to trial.
It is a multiplicity of factors that are put together to define a course of action. The test takes consideration of the nature of the website and the level of activity. The nature of interaction enables it to be categorized as either passive or semi-interactive (Cheeseman, 2013). In the case of the defendants, the website was found to be semi-interactive. In this view, it had a low-volume transaction between the foreign residents and the defendants. Despite the state, it still permits an exchange of communication between the subjects of the transaction.
Did Banks acts unethically?
Ethical connotations require that exclusive rights are preserved for their owners. Illegal use of trademarks often amounts unethical behavior. Banks, in this case, is found to have violated the binding jurisprudence by illegally using Chanel’s trademark without authority. She indeed acted unethically.
Has internet created special problems for copy rights and trademarks?
The internet comes with a package of technologies that make it easy to imitate trademarks through graphic design. It thus leaves the owners at risk of being violated by unknown targets.
Standing to sue
The case involves McDonalds that runs numerous promotional games. In the case, they have contracted Simons Marketing to carry out the promotional activities. However, Jacobson, a Security Director at Simons was found to have conspired and embezzled the pieces thereby enabling the customers to win up to $20 million in high-value prizes.
Regarding the case, it is apparent that the plaintiff had the standing to sue. Taking into consideration the FBI warning before the embezzlement revelation that there existed a problem with the random distribution, McDonalds continued to run the promotions (Cheeseman, 2013). The scheme thus denied the customers fair chances of becoming winners. Upon public revelation, the industry’s image would be damaged, and customers lose confidence in any of such promotions. Therefore, even the competitors will be affected by their revolt against such promotional campaigns thus lead to loss of revenue to the competitor. Because the Burger King also runs similar campaigns, it is likely to face the wrath of customers who come from the bitterness of fraudulent promotion. Therefore, the plaintiff had the standing to sue.
Summary judgment
In the case, the plaintiff, Phyllis Foote had filed a lawsuit against the Pathmark Stores. In her testimony, she had entered Pathmark’s stores and headed to the aisle where she fell over the soda. In her assertions, she did not have sight of the packed soda and could not determine how long they had been on there before falling over. According to Pathmark, that was ground enough to call for summary judgment. However, the Motion Court denied the summary judgment request.
In my view, it is essential to establish certain facts through interrogation by the jury. It is the responsibility of the store to create awareness about availability certain materials that could be dangerous to customers. It is thus the responsibility to use notices to alert the customers of the possible risks they face should they visit such areas. However, Pathmark had not issued any notice about the soda being on the floor (Cheeseman, 2013). In the summary judgment, a case might be terminated if facts are not established in the prima facie. However, the failure by the store to issue such notice amounts to endangering the lives of customers. While the fundamental facts might be lacking, it is clear that they too had contributed in a great way to the customer’s fall over. Therefore, I would deny the summary judgment. In this regard, it was not right to grant summary judgment as it would deny the plaintiff a fair hearing.
Ethics
According to the case, the Burnham family was living in New Jersey before they decided to separate. After the divorce, Mrs. Burnham moved over to California together with their children (Cheeseman, 2013). While on his business visit to California, he decided to visit the daughters but his primary goal was business visit. He was then served with divorce papers. He then moved to quash the service citing that there was not sufficient ground to confer personal jurisdiction.
Answers to the questions
Did Mrs. Burnham act ethically?
Being a resident of California, it was within her rights to have Mr. Burnham served with divorce papers. However, it remains unethical to do that when he’s on a business trip. It’s against the societal morals, and the timing makes it unethical.
Did Mr. Burnham act ethically?
He’s well aware of the divorce thus it is unethical to quash the service. It was not ethical for him to act like that as it would create the previous agreement.
Is the service of process good?
Yes. Some people might attempt to evade the course of justice thus service of process would help serve them with instant justice.
References
Cheeseman, H. R. (2013). The legal environment of business and online commerce: Business ethics, e-commerce, regulatory, and international issues (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
