It must be ascertained whether Pascal (P),Ong (O) and Nia (N) (PON) are able to trade under the proposed domain name. In order to do such they will be required to register the address with a domain name registry, which will generally accept applications on a first come first served basis. www.pon.co.uk is already registered by Giant Games Ltd (GGL), however PON may offer to buy the domain name from them.
A domain name is capable of being a registered trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1994 on the basis that it functions as a source indicator. A trademark may consist of personal names and letters, provided they are not devoid of any distinct character. An acronym is treated as synonymous with the words from which it is derived. Whilst 'Purveyonrs of Online Nicietities' may be deemed to generic , the uniqueness of PON's names is likely to attribute the mark with inherent distinctiveness, rendering it registrable.Therefore, as GGL have not registered the domain name as a trade mark, PON will be able to.
Consequently, in the instance that GGL refuse to sell the domain name, PON would be able to bring a claim against them for cybersquatting. The fact that the site has been registered since 1999 and remains unused is likely to be regarded by the Court as evidence of systematic registration of the domain name by GGL, for the purpose of blocking subsequent registrations as in British Telecommunications plc v One in a Million Ltd. Thus the Court may order GGL to release the domain name to PON.
Google's latest policy indirectly enables advertisers to use trademarks in key words. However, PON paying a fee to appear as the top search result when users search for a term identical to Narvey Hicks (NH) and Horads (H), in relation to ident...
... middle of paper ...
...ad the opportunity to influence its substance, significant imbalance in the parties’ rights will arise. The condition would also limit the legal rights of the consumer in the event of PON’s inadequate performance of contractual obligations and is thus inherently unfair.
Further, the condition is contradictory of the Consumer (distance selling) regulations 2000 which provides consumers in online contracts the possibility of cancelling any contract by notice.
Overall, despite judicial reluctance to interfere with commercial contracts, the Court may use the ‘blue pencil test’, whereby the offensive clause will be effectively struck out, leaving the remainder of the contract as operable. Conclusively, PON’s view that consumers will be automatically bound by the condition is incorrect; it would thus be advisable for them to avoid inserting it into their contracts.
However prior to the modern understanding of Consumer Rights there was a understanding of Caveat Emptor – Buyer Beware –this has been a fundamental premise of consumer wellbeing prior to World War ‖ , relation to transactions, principle that the buyer purchases at his own risk in the absence of an express warranty in the contract . This common law rule assumes that buyers and sellers are in an equal bargaining position. However there has been evident change in consumer rights which have contributed to the precedence of using Caveat Emptor is no longer acceptable, apparent in the case ACCC v Hewlett Packard Australia (HP), illustrated that no longer can a company ...
Firstly, the author uses logos, which is reasoning to convey his argument. The TOS which the buyers must sign before purchasing and using the item are filled with subtle details that limit the buyer’s rights. The buyers are unaware of the limitation
Even though consumers have great protection rights in Australian Customer Law, they have to understand that this law is designed to provide consumers and sellers a fair go. Therefore, consumers also have to be aware that they will not be protected if they are careless and make unreasonable demands.
Australia, commercially would be at an advantage if contract law was codified. The common law system which contracts calls home, can only take on so many avenues and limits itself when stretched to cover new areas. There needs to be a national set of laws governing contracts on the commercial front and in general areas to overcome discrepancies across borders. However there still remains inconsistency with consumers, minors and business trade through contracts made online. The digital economy is not only one of the fastest growing areas but is forever changing and is definitely a prospect that needs to be covered. Effective legal safeguards against undue exploitation and advantage-taking in such online dealings would see Australian contract law remain in the global arena. The Australian public need greater stability and certainty from contract law, and codification is a step towards fulfilling that void by allowing citizens to be well equipped and educated on their rights and decisions.
Section 3 prohibits tying contracts, where a producer requires that a buyer purchase another (or others) of its products as a condition for getting the desired good or service
There are many rights allowing consumers to cancel a contract or file a claim to receive their money back if it exceeds $1.50. Some of the rights include that falsification is prohibited. Deliveries must be done on time or the consumer has the right to cancel the order if it does not arrive within 30 days unless the merchant states otherwise. Consumers are entitled to a refund if the services or product received has not been shipped or delivered. Consumers’ also have the right to cancel a sale transaction if he decided to accept the sales person’s suggestion, however, was not satisfied with the product. Many people change to a different cell phone carrier because of the rising prices terminating their contract of use with the company. The level of concern is starting to sore a...
rule", The electronic formation of contracts and the common law: "mailbox. baylor law review. 8 april
Both the common law and the statutory law have recognized the weaker position of consumers. It is well established an exclusion clause will be valid and enforceable only if it is incorporated in the contract, use clear wordings and does not contravene statutory limits. In order to limit the unfairness resulting from exclusion clauses, the courts have developed certain principles such as the doctrine of non est factum in signature cases, ‘red ink-red hand’ principle in relation to ‘onerous or unusual’ terms, contra proferentem rule when interpreting ambiguous exclusion clauses and ‘fundamental breach’ principle.
Firms are continually churning out goods into the consumer market. However, with the advent of the lawsuit, great pressure has been imposed on companies to be more careful in terms of efficiency and especially safety with regards to goods and services. If a customer feels he has been cheated of his money and/or is simply dissatisfied with what he has paid for, than he has the right to file a lawsuit against the party responsible. Undoubtedly, such a case cost a hefty sum of money and 90 percent of the time the defendant loses; thus, giving businesses incentive to improve the quality or design of what they offer the consumer market so as to avoid troublesome and expensive court cases.
Over the years, many companies such as scrabble, Tylenol, Channel, Louis Vuitton and even Polo Ralph Lauren (PRL) Corporation have had to fight to protect their intellectual property. By looking more specifically into Polo Ralph Lauren, a fashion company that offers a range of products from clothing to home furnishings, this paper will explore trademark laws and how these laws could be advantageous one hand and limit one group and limit business abilities on another.
The basic law of a contract is an agreement between two parties or more, to deliver a service or a product. And reach a consensus about the terms and conditions that is enforced by law and a contract can be only valid if it is lawful other than that there can’t be a contract. For a contract to exist the parties must have serious intentions, agreement, contractual capacity meaning a party must be able to carry a responsibility, lawful, possibility of performance and formalities. Any duress, false statements, undue influence or unconscionable dealings could make a contract unlawful and voidable.
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.
Nissan Motor Co. would be concerned about the use of the two domain names being used by Nissan Computer Corp for several reasons. Firstly, as the Web has become a major marketing tool, customers and potential customers of Nissan Motor Co. might have difficulties finding their information due to the two domain names currently owned by Nissan Computer Corp. Ultimately this could result in the company losing profits if customers are not able to access their website. Another concern would be in regards to the names of the companies and possible confusion of these names by customers. Evidently, persons could presume that there is a connection between these two companies especially taking into consideration the fact that Nissan Motor Co. started marketing cars in the US with the name Nissan in the late 1980s. Following this, in 1991, Nissan Computer Corp was formed with two domains names being acquired Nissan.com and Nissan.net in 1994 and 1996 respectively.
 At point of sale consumer are protected by law concerning some aspects of their purchases despite principal of caveat emptor