Plaintiff, John W. Carson, was a talk show host for “The Tonight Show,” which he started hosting in 1962. He was introduced into the show with the catchphrase “Here’s Johnny.” This show was broadcast five nights out the week. (Pg. 832). Johnny W. Carson formed a company called Johnny Carson, Inc., which was formed in 1970 that produce and markets Men’s clothing and retail stores. This company used the phrase “Here’s Johnny” that Johnny W. Carson approval. (Pg. 833) Defendant, Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., which was formed in 1976 by the owner and president, Earl Braxton, is a large organization in Michigan that rent out and sell “Here’s Johnny” portable toilets. The founder of this business knew that the phrase “Here’s Johnny” was a motto …show more content…
Carson, sued Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc. for the claim of unfair competition, invasion of privacy and publicity rights, and trademark infringement under federal and state law. The district court ordered a dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. (Page 833) The appellants’ first claim alleges unfair competition from defendant’s business actions, which violated Sec. 43a of Lanham Act and Michigan common law. The equitable relief under both Michigan common law and Sec. 43a was noted the “likelihood of confusion” standard by the district court. There are eight factors that determine the likelihood of confusion, which brings up the question of law. The eight factors are: strength of the plaintiff’s mark, relatedness of the goods, similarity of the marks, evidence of actual confusion, marketing channels used, likely degree of purchaser care, defendant’s intent in selecting the mark, and likelihood of expansion of the product line. (Page 833) The court discovered that “Here’s Johnny” was not a well-built mark and should be foreclosed completely. The court decided that the defendant did not mean to deceive the public into believing that John W. Carson was somehow affiliated with the
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
United States v. Sell, 343 F.3d 950, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26859 (8th Cir., Sept. 2, 2003)
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
v. VIP Prods., LLC 666 F. Supp. 2d 974 (Mo., 2008) Anheuser-Busch makes a distinction between confusing and non-confusing parodies, the latter being protected as a parody. The important factors in the case were that the price point of the products was the same, they were directly competing goods and the survey showed that there was a level of confusion (30.3% were confused), in addition, consideration was placed on irreparable harm caused by the defendants use of the mark, the priority lay with the first to register the trademark, lastly the District Court considered public interest, i.e. whether the public was deceived. Similarly in Starbucks Corp v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee Inc., 588 F3d 97 (2d Cir. 2007) the court distinguished Louis Vuitton S.A. v Haute Diggty Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) by holding that if (as in the Louis Vuitton case), the mark is used in non-competing goods, the defendant conveyed that it was not the source of the plaintiffs product and if the actual use of the mark does not impair the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark there may be an argument in favor of the defendant, however, if the defendant’s humor is not conveyed to the public, and does not increase the public identification of the plaintiff’s mark with its mark it will fail to establish
Judicial History: The District court of Iowa granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of National By-Products, Inc. The court determined that Dale Dyer had an invalid claim to bring forth a lawsuit, thus lacking consideration to create a contract.
Villiers, M. d. (2008). Substantial Truth in Defamation Law. New South Wales: University of New South Wales.
...motion. The court correctly held that there were insufficient allegations to state a First Amendment claims against Defendant. Furthermore, the court accurately concluded that Plaintiff failed to show that relevant aspects of Defendant’s search engine were equivalent of a traditional public forum. The Court decided properly when dismissing Plaintiff’s defamation allegations because these did not alleged malice. The holding of the United States Supreme Court in Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1991), United States v. E. I.du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956), Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), the interpretation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125, Cal. Civil Code §47 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 and the decision in New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft, 356 F. Supp.2d 1090 (2004) were crucial to properly decide on the case.
There is one appellant and three respondents involved in these proceedings. Equuscorp Pty Ltd (referred to as “Equuscorp”) is the appellant. Ian Haxton, Robert Bassat and Cunningham’s Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd (referred to as “the respondents”) are the respondents. This matter was heard in the High Court of Australia in front of Chief Justice French and Judges Gummow, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell.
GANNETT CO. v. DEPASQUALE. (n.d.).The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1301
Johnny’s experience as an attorney falls far short of being the legal crusader that he envisioned for himself. Rather, it is quite short-lived . His legal career ends abruptly when his unpreparedness for an easy trial against a wealthy white woman causes him to lose the case for his client. Upon his hu...
...awarded by a jury, this motion was denied by the judge. In the end Arnold & Porter lowered their desired settlement from $21 million to $15 million, Pittston offered $13 million. The two parties reach a settlement for $13.5 million, $8 million of which was for psychic-impairment.
The Interaction Order of Public Bathrooms, written by Spencer E. Cahill, is an article that does a fairly well job at analyzing interpersonal relationships and individual practices in restrooms. Cahill used ideologies of Emile Durkheim, Erving Goffman, Margaret Atwood, Horace Miner, and Lyn Lofland to help construct his perspective on the individual’s expectations of bathroom etiquette through our experiences with others and how we internalize these behaviors.
Carlill the plaintiff who is the party filling the case went against the defendants who was carbolic smokeball Company due to a breach of contract.
The issue of gender neutral bathrooms and transgender bathrooms is a hot topic right now in North America. Some people are strongly for it and others are going to great lengths to stop it. The majority of public bathrooms in Canada and The United States of America are gender segregated. Public bathrooms are one of the last places to still be separated by gender. Men and women work with each other, sit next to each other in restaurants, use public pools together, and much more. A bathroom with a locked stall, or single occupancy washrooms with a lock, should not be much different. When the idea was raised by the LGBTQIA*+ community to have transgender bathrooms or gender neutral bathrooms, North America was divided. There were those with no
Not only did Target change their bathrooms to become gender neutral so did other well known businesses, “Barnes & Noble and Hudson 's Bay Company, also have policies explicitly allowing transgender people to use a bathroom that does not correspond to their birth certificate gender” (Abrams). Businesses have not been the only ones to change their policies with gender-neutral bathrooms, schools are starting to do the same, “Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa, has designated two bathrooms as gender-neutral”