ipl-logo

Did Drink-Company Infringe On Pat's Intellectual Property Rights

1295 Words6 Pages

Issue #1: Did Drink-Co infringe on Pat’s intellectual property rights by using the Stangaid logo on Augie-aid bottles? Rule: Pat may have intellectual property rights in the Stangaid name and logo used to create Stangaid, which could include trademark rights and trademark infringement. A trademark is a distinctive mark, design, or expression that distinguishes products or services of a particular source from those of others (Clarkson & Miller, 150). Trademark rights are protected under federal law, specifically the Lanham Act of 1946. The Lanham Act was created to protect owners who have registered trademarks from unauthorized use of their marks (Clarkson & Miller, 152). Trademark infringement occurs when another party creates and uses a …show more content…

Pat had developed and established Stangaid as a unique flavored sports drink and had marketed it locally and regionally. He did not sell the rights to use the Stangaid logo to Drink-Co. The fact that Drink-Co offered to buy Stangaid for $30 million did not include the right to use the Stangaid logo. By using the Stangaid logo on Augie-aid bottles and advertising Augie-aid as Stangaid, Drink-Co created confusion among consumers, and this constitutes an infringement of Pat's intellectual property …show more content…

If the contract contained a provision prohibiting the sale of the company to competitors, Stangaid breached the contract by failing to uphold its contractual obligation to Drink-Co and violated the terms of the agreement when agreeing to the sale with Energy-cola. Conclusion: A valid contract existed between Stangaid and Drink-Co as there was an offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention exchanged. However, Drink-Co could have breached the contract when they labeled Augie-aid bottles with the Stangaid logo and ran ads stated that Augie-aid was now Stangaid. This action by Drink-Co could have confused customers and went outside the scope of the contract, violating the terms of the agreement. Pat could push for legal consequences against Drink-Co for using Stangaid’s logo without permission. It can also be argued that because the case does not explain the contract agreement between Drink-Co and Stangaid, it cannot be known that the use of the Stangaid logo violated the terms of the contract. Therefore, Pat could have breached the terms of the contract by accepting a higher offer from Energy-Cola and selling Stangaid to them instead. As a result, Drink-Co may have grounds to sue Pat for breaching the contract and seek

Show More
Related
680 Words | 3 Pages

He maintains a conscious naivety by using derisive underlying sarcasm masked by tactful verbal articulation in response to the authoritative and condescending tone of Herbert's letter, which allows for a persuasive and entertaining argument. Though Seaver uses humor to establish his purpose, he maintains the mutual respect between the two parties, despite him believing the conflict to be childlike and absurd. Since Herbert’s argument can be interpreted in multiple ways, Seaver attacks a fallacious interpretation of Herbert’s argument: the reason he is against the two companies using the same slogan is because consumers will be unable to tell the physical difference between a book and a beverage. Seaver says that “in order to avoid confusion between the respective products due to the slogan, each sales personnel is to make sure that what the customer wants is the book, rather than a Coke,” and adds that he fears “those who read (his) ad may well tend to go out and buy a Coke rather than (his) book.” Seaver also recognizes that Herbert cannot use the threat of the law and therefore ironically mentions his “strong sentiments concerning the First Amendment” and willingness to “defend to the death” Herbert’s right to use the slogan, even though his response was intended to regard his own rights.

Read More
1709 Words | 7 Pages

The district court rejected VIP Products LLC’s nominative fair use defense saying that the Bad Spaniels toy’s significant differences to the Jack Daniel’s trade dress and bottle design did not qualify it for normative fair use. I affirm this assessment, as VIP Products LLC’s ‘Bad Spaniels’ does not directly refer to Jack Daniel’s Properties, and thus, does not qualify for normative trademark. However, this means that in order for VIP Products to sell their product, they need to argue classic fair use. However, they can not do this, because classic fair use defense requires that a trademark, “is used in good faith for its primary meaning, and no consumer confusion is likely to occur” (“4.11 Fair Use of Trademarks - Introduction to Intellectual Property”). The oral argument from Jack Daniel’s said, “29% stated that they believed there were connections to Jack Daniels” (Hernandez), and VIP Products LLC said, “in a survey done by the U.S. District Court of Arizona, they found that more than 70% of surveyed customers never actually thought or considered the fact that Jack Daniel’s had or could have endorsed the product” (Schissler).

Read More
328 Words | 2 Pages

Seaver emphasizes the absurdity of Mr. Herbert’s claim in the first section. Seaver constructs his argument around using sarcasm to highlight how ridiculous Herbert sounds stating that people might, “... mistake a book by a Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola” (lines 5-6). Seaver uses sarcasm to strengthen his claim that the slogan should not be solely for Coca-Cola. Adding onto his case, Mr. Seaver uses a confident tone, stating that, “This, we think, should protect your interest and in no way harm ours” in reply to Herbert’s comment that both companies simultaneously using the slogan could affect the sales of both companies (lines 10-11). The confidence that Mr. Seaver shows is very persuasive and overall makes Seaver sound like he knows what he is writing

Read More
658 Words | 3 Pages

Both letters, by Herbert and Seaver discuss the usage of the slogan "It's the Right Thing." Each writer uses Reductum ad Absurdum and logos as their rhetorical strategies. While Herbert, executive of the Coca Cola Company, argues that the slogan is plagiarized, Seaver, representative of Grove Press, disputes the use of the slogan as it is protected by the First Amendment. Seaver has a more persuasive prose to emphasize his idea that the "It's the Real Thing" slogan is not copyrighted.

Read More
348 Words | 2 Pages

In the movie “The fantastic Four: Rise of the Sliver Surfer”, Product placement wasn’t hard to spot in it. In the movie the number 1 product placement that was spotted was the Dodge logo that was on the fantastic-Car and through the whole movie while around the car they kept talking about the Hemi engine that was in the car. The second product placement in the movie was coca cola products. If you pay attention in the movie, every office they went into had a coca cola vending machine in them. In one scene, the character “thing” walked over to the vending machine and smashed it, which made coca cola, cans fall out.

Read More
72 Words | 1 Pages

In this article, Gary Ruskin and Juliet Schor are completely unbiased on their argument on how our country is being controlled by corporations. Both authors show awareness on how large corporations have gained access to every aspect of our lives with advertising. Ruskin and Schor do this by sharing influential background information on the corporations. Throughout my high school career several brand names like “M&M’s” and “Sprite” sponsored my school’s sport teams.

Read More
372 Words | 2 Pages

Once a contract includes all four of the competent necessary in a legally binding contract it can be enforced, where both parties are held responsible. The first element of a contract, which is an agreement would be deemed to exist if the national chain store had made any indication that they intended to enter into a legally binding contract with Sam Stevens. The chain store failed to establish a clear, understandable agreement regarding exactly what services Sam would be providing to the business, and what benefits he would receive in return. The chain store also failed to provide the specific terms outlining the contract, regarding how often Sam would ship the chain store 1,000 units and the price to be paid per unit. With no contract nor

Read More
1049 Words | 5 Pages

The Plaintiff essentially has two claims under blurring, it may assert that Pets, Inc. has diluted Chapel and Chapel No. 13 as Defendant uses the syllable, ‘pel’ and ‘No. 13’ in its product. The statute sets forth six non-exhaustive factors that will be considered by the court; (1) the “degree of similarity” of the marks, (2) distinctiveness of the famous mark, (3) exclusivity of use of the famous mark, (4) degree of recognition of the famous mark, (5) whether the defendant intended to create an association with the famous mark, and (6) any actual association between the marks 115 U.S.C §1125(c)(2)(B) (i)-(vi). In considering these factors the court will determine if the defendants use of the mark will create an association with the plaintiffs

Read More
301 Words | 2 Pages

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 contains the Australian Consumer Law. This national piece of legislation offers protection to consumers and commenced on 1 January 2011. It replaces a host of state, territory, and national laws in one cohesive package. Section 29 specifically forbids the making of false or misleading representations in respect of supply or possible supply of goods and services. Businesses found breaching this section can be held liable for large financial penalties.

Read More
254 Words | 2 Pages

Purchase Contract This Purchase Contract (“Contract”) is entered into this 22th day of July, 2015 (“Effective Date”) by and between Dunder Mifflin, Inc. (“Provider”) a Pennsylvania corporation and Donuts Inc., a Washington company (“Donuts”) (individually each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”). Service DM provides paper products to growing business’ like Donuts which is a company that provides TLD services. The Parties would like to spell out there mutual understanding for DM’s provision of paper products to Donuts.

Read More
3473 Words | 14 Pages

FIE445 – Take-home Exam Esty, Case n°18: “Mobile Energy Services Company” Candidate numbers: 8 and 17 Question 1: Ownership and contractual structures Following the restructuration of Scott Paper and the subsequent acquisition of the energy complex by the Southern Company, a heavy contractual framework was displayed in order to try to secure the relationships between the parties. The diagram below encompasses the most notable elements of this framework, with respect to the ownership of the Mobile Energy Services Company (MESC) and its agreements with other parties. * MESC LLD was acquired by the Southern Company after a bidding process, through two of its (fully owned) subsidies: MESC Holding Incorporated and Southern Electric International.

Read More
811 Words | 4 Pages

POM stated that Coca-Cola was in violation of the Lanham Act which is a federal law prohibiting false advertising and unfair competition laws. Pom challenged that the name, labeling, marketing, and advertising of Coca Cola’s pomegranate blueberry juice drink (Oyez.org). The district court ruled that POM Wonderful’s claim could not be heard because of the FDCA or the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act

Read More
1489 Words | 6 Pages

1_ Leonard v.Pepsico,INC. 88 F.supp.2d116(S.D.N.Y 1997) WOOD,J. In this case PepsiCo doing a promotional campaign in which consumer were invited to acquire “Pepsi points” by purchasing Pepsi product and exchange them for “Pepsi stuff” and harrier jet was shown in the end of commercial and said that harrier jet was 7000,000 Pepsi points. After a few second later the voice appears before ending the commercial “Drink more Pepsi-Get more points”. Plaintiff saw the commercial and decided to collect Pepsi points.

Read More
900 Words | 4 Pages

Introduction – Equal Opportunity in Employment This reflective paper will address several issues associated with consumer protection and product safety. First, it will discuss whether Coca Cola’s advertisements for Vitamin Water are deceptive advertising or mere promotions of its product. Next, this paper will discuss whether manufacturers have any duty to warn the public about their products or whether the law should adopt the idea of “buyer beware” so that consumers read the label.

Read More
363 Words | 2 Pages

Summary of LEONARD v. PEPSICO, INC. PepsiCo (Defendant), advertised Pepsi related paraphernalia, which one could obtain by getting “Pepsi points” by drinking Pepsi. The commercial featured a youth arriving at school in a Harrier Jet and said the Harrier Jet was 7,000,000 Pepsi points. Plaintiff tried to obtain the Harrier Jet by sending fifteen Pepsi points and a check for the amount of money needed to obtain the Harrier jet.

Read More

More about Did Drink-Company Infringe On Pat's Intellectual Property Rights

Open Document