Distinguishing Panavision And Bensusan
The law regarding jurisdiction determination was far from crystal clear even before the internet came of age, and courts are now having a difficult time reconciling the "purposeful availment" and related "effects" tests used in traditional jurisdiction analyses with the new paradigms in information transfer made possible by the internet, and in particular by the World Wide Web (WWW). These difficulties are apparent in Panavision, Int'l. L.P. v. Toeppen, 938 F. Supp 616 (C.D. Cal. 1996), and Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Both cases involved trademark infringement and dilution suits stemming from the alleged use of the trademark on the WWW. Each court came down differently on the jurisdiction issue, and rightly so, but neither court's analysis was very satisfying when one attempts to distinguish the two cases.
In Toeppen, the defendant had formed a plan to find prominent registered trademarks which had not yet been registered as internet addresses, and register them as his own, with the expectation that he could sell them at a substantial profit to the owner of each mark should that owner desire to do business on the internet using that internet address. The court used a three-part test for specific jurisdiction, the first part of which was the "purposeful availment" test, which in turn became an "effects test" when the claim is in the nature of a tort. After deciding that the claim was tort-like, the court used the "effects test" and found that Toeppen's acts were 1) intentional, 2) aimed at California, and 3) caused foreseeable harm to the plaintiff. This was at the heart of the court's reasoning in exercising jurisdiction.
The facts in Bensusan start out very much like Toeppen, but diverge at a point, resulting in a decision to decline to exercise jurisdiction. In Bensusan, which proceeded Toeppen by ten days, the defendant, a Missouri jazz club, had set up a web page the contents of which contained an allegedly infringing use of the plaintiff's trademark, "The Blue Note". The plaintiff, owner of the mark for a New York jazz club, wanted the New York district court to interpret state law so that it could exercise jurisdiction over the Missouri club. It refused to do so because, under a similar "effects test" to that used in Toeppen (the court here also found the claim to be in the nature of a tort), there was no foreseeable harm to the plaintiff.
"Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. .
Plaintiff website operator, KinderStart.com filed a complaint against Defendant Google, alleging nine claims for relief: violation of the right to free speech under the United States and California Constitutions; attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act; monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act; violations of the Communications Act, unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200; unfair practices under California Business and Professions Code; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; defamation and libel, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff then proceed to file an amended complaint asserting s...
World-Wide Volkswagen and Seaway demonstrate that there are limits to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. The decision recognizes that companies manufacture goods movable in interstate commerce and that any particular good can settle in diverse physical locations. Although the manufacturer knows that the product is movable, such as a car, that awareness alone is inadequate to provide a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a remote foreign court; thus they cannot be sued in that state.
UMKC School of Law, 2006. Web. The Web. The Web. 13 Jan. 2014.
The Curious Confusion Surrounding Escobedo v. Illinois. (1965). The University of CHicago Law Review, 560-580.
The advanced option makes things easier for the patients. Sometimes one may make a promise and fail to attend due to unavoidable circumstances including financial (Humphries & Eddy, 2000). In fact, when one promises something chances of fulfilling it becomes even slimmer. In the event the patient turns the next day and gets the physician, this improves the delivery. The patient would feel good when their day turns for the help for the clinic. The physician also would have more flexibility in their dealing. They would be dealing one case as it comes rather than waiting for the opportune time which may not finally come to happen. The backlog will be reduced. The most pressing issue and those which are not critical will be given the same attention under this system of advanced system.
In this paper I will evaluate America's War on Drugs. More specifically, I will outline our nation's general drug history and look critically at how Congress has influenced our current ineffective drug policy. Through this analysis I hope to show that drug prohibition policies in the United States, for the most part, have failed. Additionally, I will highlight and evaluate the influences acting on individual legislators' decisions to continue support for these ineffective policies as a more general demonstration of Congress' role in the formation of our nation's drug policy strategy. Finally, I will conclude this analysis by outlining the changes I feel necessary for future progress to be made. Primary among these changes are a general promotion of drug education and the elimination of our current system's many de-legitimating hypocrisies.
Habeas Corpus or the “Great Writ” is widely considered to the preemptive cornerstone our human civil liberties within the United States jurisdiction as it is deeply rooted within common laws of social ordinance. Habeas corpus was generally conceived by the English as early as 1215 and signed into law by King John during his short tenner, however, formally recognized in 1679. Commonly re...
Smoking tobacco has long been an accepted form of recreational drug use despite a history of flip-flops of public opinion. The negative effects of smoking were not thought of or even known until the early 1900’s. (“Introduction to Smoking”) Over the last few decades there has been an ever increasing surge in the United States and all over the world to ban smoking in public places. The goals of these smoking bans are to prevent the numerous diseases and health complications that are produced from exposure to the toxic smoke and to improve the overall health of society. Some disagree with these motives by claiming that smoking bans have not actually saved any lives or prevented people from taking up the habit. Contrarily, global research now actually shows that smoking tobacco kills people both directly and indirectly; indirectly, of course, referring to second-hand smoke. Another argument against these smoking bans is that a number of people feel as though they infringe upon their individual rights. These people believe they have a right to smoke tobacco anywhere they choose; not unlike many people who also believe they have a right to avoid forced exposure to deadly second-hand smoke. One might wonder which of the two takes precedence. Another very important thing to consider is while these smoking bans may appear to have a good intent they present to society a difficult scenario if imposed and maintained; they threaten to set a precedent for the restriction of other freedoms that humanity may take for granted. Smoking bans may be justifiable but, like many other prominent moral dilemmas, it may take centuries if not millennia to satisfactorily answer the questions brought forth by the issue.
Since Dusky v United States created the bench mark for CTS, there have been many other cases and Supreme Court decisions that have modified and refined CST. The three main cases that demonstrate this modification to CST are; Washington v Harper (1990), Riggins v Nevada (1992) and Sell v United states (2003). Each of these cases demonstrated the government attempting to restore the...
The drug control policy of the United States has always been a subject of debate. From Prohibition in the early 1930’s to the current debate over the legalization of marijuana, drugs have always been near the top of the government’s agenda. Drug use affects every part of our society. It strains our economy, our healthcare, our criminal justice systems, and it endangers the futures of young people. In order to support a public health approach to drug control, the Obama administration has committed over $10 billion to drug education programs and support for expanding access to drug treatment for addicts (Office). The United States should commit more government resources to protect against illegal use of drugs by youths and provide help for recovering addicts.
Even though I still want to be able to breathe clean air in an establishment that is smoke free, smoking will still be a big epidemic in this country. If smoking could be banned in drinking establishments, hospitals, buses, train stations, restaurants, etc., nonsmokers would be able to enjoy a smoke free environment wherever they go. Smokers also have the option to quit smoking. They can always get helpful tips and advice, along with using patches. In addition, the ban will help decrease health problems, lower death rates, and nonsmokers and former smokers will be able to live happy and healthy lives.
Finally, by not ordering the transfer of the domain names from Nissan Computer to Nissan Motor Co. the courts action was fair to both parties and the general public. Nissan Motor Co. had enough time to register their domain name; therefore they had no legal or ethical rights to acquire the domain names from Nissan Computer. Overall the courts acted in good faith to both parties and the society as a whole.
Some may argue that bans infringe on smoker 's right. There is no right to smoke. A person 's rights end when it infringes on another 's rights.
“…..Nearly half the adult population regularly performs a bizarre act which is necessary neither for the maintenance of life nor for the satisfaction of social, sexual, cultural, or spiritual needs; an act which is acknowledged, even by its adherents, to be harmful to health and even distasteful” (Aston and Stepney 1982: VII). Regarding the above statement a vast majority of anti-smoking campaigners believe that the restriction on smoking in public locations should be increased and effective actions should be taken by governments in order to reduce the consumption of tobacco. On the other hand, addicted smokers consider smoking prohibition as interference in their civil freedom. Though they argue that they have the right to smoke whenever and wherever they want; governments consider passive smoking’s threats as a major priority to deal with. This essay will discuss the policies taken by governments to decrease or even stop smoking among the public. Moreover, it will present smoker’s arguments regarding their right to smoke in public places.